Anne of Avonlea is a great book, and if you haven't read it, you're missing out! It continues the story of the girl with hair "the color of carrots", as she becomes a school teacher in Avonlea. There is everything in here, humor, love, the works! I also recomend Anne of Green Gables.

After the great success of "Anne of Green Gables," Lucy Maud Montgomery had to quickly write a sequel to continue the misadventures of the mischievous red-headed orphan on Prince Edward Island. Since the original classic was not intended to be the first in a series, Montgomery had to make some changes. The one that will drive you crazy is that Anne is back to being oblivious about Gilbert Blythe being the love of her life and her perfect match. The other thing that becomes obvious is that Montgomery is somewhat uncomfortable with Anne growing up, even though she is only "half-past sixteen," as evidenced by the infusion of new children into the story because Anne is now teaching at Avonlea school and Marilla has adopted the irrepressible Keith twins, Davy and Dora. You can also throw into the mix the mysterious new neighbor with his parrot and (my favorite part) the eccentric Miss Lavendar who has been waiting a quarter of a century for her beloved Stephen Irving to return to her. Along with "Anne of Windy Poplars," this book is a testament to Montgomery's respect for the teaching profession; the book is dedicated to her former teacher, Hattie Gordon Smith. While this is not one of my favorite Anne novels, it is still a worthy successor to the classic story. However, be warned: If you watch either of the "Anne of Avonlea" movies you will that virtually nothing from this novel ever made it to film.

Anne is a marvellous girl with a big imagination that capt your mind. Besides, she's very impulsive and optimistic. When you start reading this book, you want to not stop. I personally read it in about one day and after that, I re-read it about 6 times without being tired or boring. Lucy Maud Montgomery made characters that are really fantastic. She's a good writer and I admire her. When I read "Anne of Avonlea", I felt myself very optimistic and happy. I advice you to buy this fantastic book. You will not regret that at all especially if you like stirring books.

Beginning in 1881 and continuing to 1906, Ambrose Bierce created a series of sardonic word definitions of his own. Many of these were collected and published as The Cynic's Word Book, which he later protested was "a name which the author had not the power to reject or happiness to approve." So in 1911, he pulled together a collection that was more to his own liking and called it The Devil's Dictionary. The entries are a tad uneven in quality, but most are amusing and some are great. Each reader will have his own favorites, some of mine are as follows : ACQUAINTANCE, n. A person whom we know well enough to borrow from, but not well enough to lend to. A degree of friendship called slight when its object is poor or obscure, and intimate when he is rich or famous. ALLIANCE, n. In international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pockets that they cannot separately plunder a third. BIGOT, n. One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain. BORE, n. A person who talks when you wish him to listen. CONSULT, v.i. To seek another's disapproval of a course already decided on. CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision. DICTIONARY, n. A malevolent literary device for cramping the growth of a language and making it hard and inelastic. This dictionary, however, is a most useful work. DISCRIMINATE, v.i. To note the particulars in which one person or thing is, if possible, more objectionable than another. EDUCATION, n. That which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish their lack of understanding. FUTURE, n. That period of time in which our affairs prosper, our friends are true and our happiness is assured. HISTORY, n. An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools.... A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in human affairs has always been dominant and controlling... He has the last word in everything; his decision is unappealable. He sets the fashions and opinion of taste, dictates the limitations of speech and circumscribes conduct with a dead-line. POLITICS, n. A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage. And, my choice for the very best among them : CONSERVATIVE, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. By all means, read it and pick out your own; you're sure to find a few that tickle your fancy. GRADE : A

I first acquired this book about five years ago, after reading Bierce's fictional works. I could not put it down. You don't read this book sequentially, but rather it is a book to leaf through, stopping where you find a word that interests you. With the format of a dictionary, Bierce sets up the look and feel of the official word, which is what we expect from a dictionary. Then, reading the definitions, you at first think, "Bierce is being a wise guy." But after a few more definitions, you realize that Bierce is actually delivering a concise treatise on Western Culture by giving you a shot-by-shot commentary, using as his basis the essential element of any society -- its language. Birece may not have realized it when he wrote the book, but The Devil's Dictionary aligns with some 21st-century literary experimentations with concise presentation, irony, and non-linear exploration. Even reading it non-linearly, however, you soon find you've read every entry in the book. Then, of course, you'll want to start again...

My favorites are the definitions pertaining to religion.

Ambrose Bierce was a man of many distinctions - writer, journalist, humorist, and Civil War veteran. We all remember reading his classic story "An Occurrence At Owl Creek Bridge" in eighth grade English class. Bierce is best known for his ghoulish horror tales, which were on a par with Edgar Allan Poe, but his greatest work was The Devil's Dictionary. A scathing parody of Webster's dictionary, Bierce's volume was a showcase for his brilliant, caustic wit. This is Bierce at his best, mixing comedy with social commentary, unleashing his anarchistic convictions to the hilt! Bierce blasts away at God and country and all that is respected and proper. He defines patriot as "the dupe of statesmen and the tool of conquerors", a Conservative as "a statesman who is enamored of existing evils" and a clergyman as "a man who undertakes the management of our spiritual affairs as a method of bettering his temporal ones" and so on. Nothing is sacred and no one is safe in this classic work of 19th century American literature which continues to attract just as much controversy and outrage today as it did when it was first published. A must read for all students of literature, dissenters, and fans of caustic humor!

Heidi is ranked up there with, "Where the Red Fern Grows" with it's genuine love and care of the hearts of children and adults. I read this book to my children when they were in 1st and K...several times I had to stop to choke back the tears.. or laugh in exhuberance. It's a heart-warming tale of a little girl who didn't understand the "status quo" and sought to make sense of not only her own world, but those around her. Her innocense, genuine love and acceptance is so moving and so inspiring.

Heidi is very exciting. She is very outgoing and adventurous. She gets sent to the Alm Mts. with her grumpy old grandfather. She shows him how to be nice and friendly. She meets a boy named Peter and they become good friends. He then shows her his family. Heidi meets his grandmother and falls in love with her and everything that she does. She then gets sent to a weird house.She soon came home.
This book is recommended for all ages to be read to or read by you!
Why am I telling you this go read it for your self!!!

A while back when I was in my 30's (never mind how long ago that was!) I was sick with the flu, and I found a copy of HEIDI, so I crawled into a nice warm bed and re-read the book -- as an adult.

What insight into human nature! And as an adult I appreciated the dry, understated humor. I also appreciated the spiritual insights -- that God will give us what we desire, but sometims uses circumstances we don't like to teach us truths that we couldn't learn otherwise.

When I was a girl I was often turned off by what was called "good reading," but for some reason, I enjoyed Heidi and it never seemed sappy or corny.

Very much worth reading!

As a high school student reading this play for educational purposes, my first impression was that it would be long and boring. I was, however, corrected within the first few pages as I encountered the hilarious discussions between Jack and Algernon. The language and wit is so dry its hard not to find something amusing. This line said by Algernon is one worth saving, "The truth is rarely pure and never simple. Modern life would be very tedious if it were either, and modern literature a complete impossibility!" Contrary to popular belief, this play is not one thats difficult to get into. Right from the start there is a conflict that grabs the readers attention and carries them through the mix up of fiances with Cecily and Gwendolen, also a scene that is sure to amuse even the most serious of readers. Lady Bracknell could seemingly be a thorn in the readers side in the beginning, but not to worry, the old woman set in her ways becomes if nothing else a source of comic relief. This play is not only a quick read but also has the perfect combination of characters that makes it delightfully funny.

One of Oscar Wilde's most famous works, this play is a must read for anyone that is even remotely interested in English theater at any level.

"Comedy of Manners," Wilde's play is on the very shallow surface, a funny play that is full of some of his greatest epigrams.

At a deeper level, this play is full of political commentary, social satire and a look at the upper class British of a hundred years ago.

Using his world renound style and wit, Wilde, wrote a play that brought to light the majors flaws of the idle rich and the hypocracy that lived right on the surface of their every day lives.

Often immitated but never surpassed, Wilde had a way with words and an ability to get to the heart of matters while protecting himself; by making the people he was pointing his finger at, laugh at themselves.

This play should be bought, even if one has seen one of the many film versions, or a live revival of the show. The jokes are piled so thickly on top of each other, that in real time, it is imposible to catch everything, or to digest all of the deeper meanings that this play attempts to expose.

That's right - if it isn't the single wittiest, funniest play ever, it's as close as you can get. Oscar Wilde had a great talent for dialogue and writing, but the real fun comes in the ingenious plotting and the side-splitting comments. "The Importance of Being Earnest" is absolutely filled with insightful, humorous barbs that take jabs at society - you'll literally be laughing out loud every page.

Not only is the play brilliantly ironic and witty, it's quite cheerful and good-natured. The characters are likable, the plot never takes itself too seriously, and the ending is happy. It seems that Wilde knew exactly what he wanted: to write a light-hearted, amusing play without serious overtones, and he succeeded wildly. This isn't to say that he sacrificed any literary qualities, as the play is recognized for the marvelous writing, but it is considerably more fun and entertaining than many other literary works.

In sum, Oscar Wilde's "The Importance of Being Earnest" is a classic in every sense of the word, and it's tremendously fun to read. I can't recommend any comedy more highly.

The Schlegel sisters are interested in the arts and in the more idealistic liberal social movements of their early 20th century world. The Wilcoxes are practical and materialistic. There seems to be little in common between the two families, but not even a highly embarrassing early amorous encounter can keep them apart. Poor Leonard Bast is as idealistic as the Schlegels, but encumbered by an unloved wife with a shady past, he has not their financial means to avoid dealing with the practicalities of life. Caught between the two factions, he eventually is crushed. Only Margaret Schlegel is finally strong enough to bridge the gap between the practical and the ideal by exerting her benevolent humanity, her passionate and yet controlled determination that people must "connect."HOWARDS END is a minor masterpiece, capturing perfectly the conflict between rigid Victorian values and the more free and open changes in the turbulent years before World War I. Forster handles his characters with great sensitivity and sympathy, yet with a subtle and skillful irony. The novel is not intended for rapid reading, but there is a felicity of expression that is an ample reward for careful perusal. Less fastidious than Henry James, not quite the equal of Trollope in characterization, a more subtle stylist than William Dean Howells, Forster combines some of the best elements of all three of these social chroniclers in an important work that is both highly personal and universal in scope.

I have read Howard's End two or three times and listened to it once on tape and it remains one of my favorite novels. Many people were introduced to it by the film, which, good though it was, does not begin to capture the subtle wisdom Forster put into this book. Howard's End can be seen as a quaint period piece about British culture in the early Twentieth Century. On another level, however, it's a brilliant exploration of the human soul. In the Schlegels and the Wilcoxes, Forster has created the perfect embodiment of the eternal conflict between reason and passion. These two families, destined to be united by the marriage of Margaret Schlegel to Henry Wilcox, represent two seemingly irreconcilable aspects of humanity. The Schlegels are artistic, intellectual and impractical; the Wilcoxes materialistic and unapologetically bourgeois. Margaret and Henry have their differences, but it is their relatives who display the more extreme family traits. Margaret's sister Helen is a classic bohemian; Henry's son Charles is a humorless and intolerant banker. As the novel unfolds, the two families are forced to confront each other and decide whether to ultimately part company or compromise. What is most impressive to me about the novel is the naturalness and grace with which the story unfolds. When an author uses characters to embody universal qualities, it is quite a challenge to make the people and story real and not merely symbols. Howard's End succeeds brilliantly as both a thoroughly engaging novel and a rather profound metaphysical inquiry.

Howard's End can be read again and again and again - and the reader comes away with something fresh each time. Like all of Forster's tales, it's concerned with the deep and petty differences in the various classes of English society, as well as economics and education, and how these issues come to affect personal relationships. Set in the early 20th century, Howard's End follows the two Schlegel sisters. Margaret, the elder, rather suddenly finds herself engaged, then married to Mr. Wilcox, a much older widower, a rather superficial and bombastic English gentleman. Meanwhile, her sister, Helen, becomes involved in politics, good works, and the attempted salvation of Leonard Bast, an impoverished clerk and intellectual. The ownership of Howard's End, the country estate of the late Mrs. Wilcox, becomes central to the story; the wrangling this bequest causes is a metaphor for the class struggles that weave like tangled braids throughout the whole of the book. The tragedy chronicled in the book is seen to have resulted from chance encounters, foolish pride, and petty misunderstandings.
A deeply sad and beautiful book.

The style is direct and unpretentious. The message is simple but extraordinarily powerful: life is short, the past and the future are inaccessible, pain and pleasure have no meaning, but inside each one of us there is a ruling faculty that is touched only by itself. Only that which makes us better capable of confronting our condition with resolution and courage can be said to be good, and only that which makes us worse and more unsatisfied can be said to be bad. The only thing that is of any importance is our own private quest for perfection, which no external power can ever destroy. Marcus Aurelius delivers many insightful and inspirational observations about human nature and the human condition, and he makes an excellent rational argument for seeking the good and for acting modestly and continently. I cannot think or a more satifying and moving work, and it is all the more poignant because it was written by a man who wielded almost absolute power and lived surrounded by the luxury, yet managed to keep things in perspective and to occupy himself only with what truly matters. One sentence captures perfectly the spirit of his writings: "Where a man can live, there he can also live well." An extraordinary testimony of wisdom and fortitude.

I believe it was book four where Aurelius says that we should begin each day by telling ourselves that we will meet ignorance in the world continuously (this is, of course, just paraphrasing)...I mention this to show a mere fraction, an "over the surface," example of this philosopher's maxims. They are to live by. Marcus, a student of the school of Cleanthes and Zeno, wrote this masterpiece (indeed it is) as his solace in war...A profound, and extremely intimate, view of the world by an ancient master, this book is a classic for all....MUST READ!

It's long overdue that the public receives a modernernized translation of Marcus Aurelius's "Meditations". Up until now, all the translations that we had available to us in English of this intriguing work have been, well, rather dull and "dry". All that is changed. Gregory Hayes has done some fine work here. I personally congratulate him, and thank him for his efforts.

I still wouldn't necessarily call this book a thrill-a-minute, page-turner of suspense, but thanks to a more contemporary language-treatment, the experience is a whole lot less burdensome to get through. The ride may not be the best fun you've ever had reading a book, but it's considerably less painful now, thanks to this "user-friendly" updated version.

Comparison to older translations shows it to be accurate in meaning and tone, and if he were alive today, I think Marcus Aurelius would recommend this version of his work for us (as modern readers) to enjoy for years to come.

OK, young fool falls in love with married girl. Becomes friend of the couple. Husband starts to get annoyed. Hero declares his love and then commits suicide. You can read that in the paper once in a while. So, why is this a great novel and a landmark of Romantic literature? Because it has a lot to make us think. A famous fact related to this book is that, short after it was published, a series of suicides took place in Europe, mostly by young guys in the same situation as Werther. That should set clear the influence and strenght of the novel. It is extremely well written; the scenery is gorgeous -rural, upper class Germany in the Eighteenth century. The book is written as a secret diary addressed to a trusted friend, and to any readers, young or old, it will strike a chord in their hearts. Tell me, who is there that never experienced dreams of punishing that insensible beloved from school by committing suicide and then have her cry and repent at the funeral? But most of us are still here, with her or, most likely, with someone else or alone. We survived love's infatuation; Werther did not, and he is now a prototype of unlimited love (or lack of maturity, depending on your point of view). I prefer to see it as a great story written, at an early stage, by one of the greatest geniuses of all time. "Werther"

I always find it sad that more people do not read Goethe for pleasure alone. Yes, he was a "scholarly" writer but his works, although profound, are written in an easily understandable style. I think too many people have been needlessly scared off by Goethe's monumental intelligence and his philosophy. This is too bad. His books revolve around themes that are universal, subjects to which all of us can relate: romantic love, nature, God, beauty.

Eighteenth-century German literature was propelled by a revolution in romanticism, and writers such as Goethe celebrated their most cherished ideals in as ornate and eloquent a manner as possible. While the tendency of American and British writers to ignore the sublime and the romantic in favor of stark realism does have its place, that does not mean that the sublime and the romantic should be casually tossed aside.

The Sorrows of Young Werther is not Goethe at this best (you need to read Wilhelm Meister's Apprenticeship for that) but it the best introduction to Goethe anyone could find and a lovely novella in its own right. The Sorrows of Young Werther opens more amazingly than any book I have ever read and it is not overstating things a bit to say that Goethe gives us something profound and beautiful on each and every page.

The Sorrows of Young Werther is comprised, for the most part, of letters written by a hopelessly romantic young man named Werther to a friend named Wilhelm. These letters not only detail Werther's doomed love for the beautiful Charlotte, they also contain the most beautiful meditations on just about everything important in life: love, beauty, nature, philosophy, art, religion.

In Werther, Goethe clearly shows us the problems inherent in loving and idealizing something a bit too much. I think many readers will have a problem with the character of Werther. He is simply too romantic to be real. And then there will be those who will wonder how a man who is capable of uttering the most gorgeous and flowing words about beauty, art and nature can fall so hopelessly in love with one woman that he seems to forget all else that he holds dear. Well, Werther, in the best romantic tradition, has invested all the emotion he feels for art, beauty, religion, etc. in Charlotte. Once readers realize this, I think the ending of this novella will make sense to them. Yes, Werther is an extreme but once you come to understand him, he does make perfect sense.

As I said, this isn't Goethe at this best or his most sublime or even, believe it not, his most romantic, but this is certainly the best place to begin if you are just beginning your study of this monumental author or of German romanticism in general.

The Sorrows of Werther is a book, that doesn't really need any introduction. However, in addition to the other reviews I would like to point out that Goethe's book is not be seemn only as a great love story (as such I, at least, find it rather commonsome), but a deep, accurate and insightful study of the mechanisms of love. Despite the sentimentalism and the emotional turmoils of the narrator, its language and composition are of the utmost clarity. Reading the book often - passage or two at the time - I find it most amusing. Many are the pleasures it brings to the disentangled and ironic reader. A great companion to the book is Roland Barthes's Fragments däun discours amoreux. A book akin in spirit to Werther, but with a more interesting plot, is de Laclos's Dangerous Liasons.

First off, this review is of "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow and Rip Van Winkle" published by Dover Children's Thrift Classics, $.... While most reviews might concentrate on the merits of the stories themselves, this review is meant to support the benefits of purchasing this particular edition over others.

That said, the first thing I would like to comment on is the price. You can't ask for more of a bargain that to pay less than a ... of America's most popular and well known Revolutionary War era stories. Great for anyone on a budget, or parents who want to expand their child's library but don't want to break the bank on something they may only read once. ....

Secondly, I would like to mention that this book contains BOTH "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" AND "Rip Van Winkle" in their respective unabridged entirety. Both are relatively short, entertaining, and easy-to-read stories that supply a great introduction to period literature, beliefs, and storytelling for children and adults alike. While these are not Washington Irving's only writings, they are perhaps the most well-known.

As a former teacher, I have the following suggestion: If you live in the New York metro area, this book would be an excellent jumping off point for a trip to Washington Irving's homestead, "Sunnyside", in Tarrytown, NY, for which you can find plenty of information online. There are several other "living history" sites in the area as well.

"The Legend of Sleepy Hollow and Rip Van Winkle" brings together these two classic stories by Washington Irving. The text of this Dover Children's Thrift Classic is accompanied by the whimsical illustrations of Thea Kliros. Both tales are set in the Dutch-American communities of rural New York State.

"Legend" tells the story of Ichabod Crane, a schoolteacher who lives in an area purportedly haunted by a terrifying spectre: a headless horseman. "Rip" tells the story of a farmer who has a remarkable paranormal experience while wandering in the mountains.

Each story explores the intersection of the supernatural with everyday life. The stories are full of vividly drawn characters and are rich with the local color of rural Dutch American communities. Issues such as folk beliefs, geography, history and oral tradition are well handled by Irving.

Irving's playful, earthy prose style is a delight to read. Passages such as a description of a Dutch-American feast are memorable. Funny, ironic, and poignant, these tales are true classics by one of the most enduring figures in American literature.

Will Moses' illustrated retelling of Washington Irving's The Legend of Sleepy Hollow rivals Arthur Rackham's near century-old version as the best edition of the book ever published. The Rackham version, with its moody, archetypal illustrations, has the slight edge, as it contains Irving's full original text in addition to Rackham's spectacular artwork.

However, Moses's simplification of the narrative is masterfully executed, and the colorful, playful, and numerous paintings which adorn the book have a warm period charm of genuine Americana. Moses portrays the Hudson River Valley as a lush expansive valley not unlike the Garden of Eden on the first day of creation. Happy farmers, their wives and children, cows, geese, ducks and pigs frolic together amid fields of wheat and corn; galleons approach dramatically from the river; and the Catskill Mountains, sun, and sky suggested an infinite panorama and endless horizon full of promise.

The story tells us that the Dutch colonists were a superstitious lot, and that the Sleepy Hollow region itself was or seemed to be under a spell of some kind. The farmers and their wives suspected witchcraft; strange music was heard in the air; visions were seen; and the inhabitants themselves lived their lives in a kind of continuous dreamy revery. These tales and superstitions give rise to the legend of the headless horseman, said to be the ghost of a Hessian soldier who lost his head to a canon ball in the war, and now nightly prowling the region in search of it. Moses' nocturnal landscapes of the swamps, hills and the Old Dutch Cemetery under a bright harvest moon are particularly effective. Significantly, these stark, haunted landscapes do not violate the spirit of the book, but enrich its sense of wonder.

Moses' Ichabod is a cheerful but somewhat hapless fellow, confident and foolish in equal parts. His Katrina is a strong but innocent blond beauty, and a friend to children. Brom Bones is an appropriately square-shouldered, square-jawed hooligan, rowdy and full of mischief, if not absolute spite.

Anyone familiar with the tale knows that it is not a horror story but a folktale, a fireside spook story, and a 'legend' as Irving, writing here as Diedrich Knickerbocker, himself called it. This edition of the book is appropriate for children but is equally suitable for adults. Highly recommended.

This is the first fiction book I've read in a long time, and I have to say I'm not too disappointed. Fathers and Sons relates not only the generation gap in 19th century Russia, but also shows how fragile and fake the entire Russian system was in that time period. Every character symbolizes an important facet of Russian society. Paul Petrovich is the old slavophile nobility, convinced that Russians and their ways are the best in the world while they wear English clothing and speak and read in French. His brother Nicholas is the bridge between the old world and the new world, trying to fit in with the new ways while he only understands the old customs. Arcady, who represents those in society who outwardly follow the latest trendy beliefs but can't shake their emotions or their humanity. And Barazov, who represents youth, with its eternal promise of new ideas and ways, but who are blind to their own naive hypocrisy. Certainly there are other characters, but these major figures shape the plot of the book.

Turgenev manages to leave no stone unturned, casting withering attacks on peasants, psuedo-intellectualism, government officials, corruption, and conventions. The book mentions that Turgenev alienated and angered many in Russia with this book, and the reader will quickly see why.

Turgenev recognized the backwardness of Russia, and that it must change if it were to survive in a new world. The big question was how, and Turgenev shows that while idealists like Bazarov may have new ideas (Bazarov's idea was nihilism, a belief in nothing), those ideas mean nothing if not backed up with solutions to the problems.

An excellent book, and very readable. The price is low enough that most people really don't have an excuse to give this one a shot.

This was required reading for my Russian literature class because it is considered a classic. My favorite part of this book is the fact that it gives the reader a glimpse of what life was like for the average nobleman of the day...(in the 1850's) It has some interesting descriptions of Russian family life, the life of the peasantry and how the younger generation interacted with the older generation (hence the title, "Fathers and Sons" although the original Russian is called "Fathers and Children"). One of the main characters, Bazarov, is a self proclaimed nihilist who rejects all forms of authority, causing problems for the older generations (his parents & his friend's parents), but attracting the attention of the people of his (the younger) generation. This book has no real plot...it is merely the story of how one man brings his nihilist ideas into other peoples' lives & it gives accounts of everybody else's reactions to these nihilist ideas. It is an interesting book & a pretty quick read, but it can drag in places...especially if the reader is waiting for something interesting to happen. All in all, I believe this book is worth reading, if just to get a taste of "Old Russia", but if you are looking for an exciting "can't-put-it-down-sitting-on-the-edge-of-your-seat-page-turner", you won't find it in this book.

In Turgenev's Fathers and Sons, as in most of Chekhov, nothing much really happens. People talk a lot and that's about it. Should be dull, right? But it isn't. The talk, and the characters revealed, reflect the profound changes that were being felt in Russian society at the end of the 19th Century; changes that would set the stage for much of what was to happen in the 20th Century. But more important to a modern reader, the ideas and the real life implication of those ideas are as current and relevant as when Turgenev wrote. Bazarov, the young 'nihilist', sounds just like the typical student rebel of the 60's (or of the Seattle WTO protests just recently). He has the arrogance and the innocence of idealistic youth. He is as believeable, and as moving in his ultimate hurt, as any young person today might be confronted with the limitations of idealism and the fickle tyranny of personal passion.

I loved this book when I first read it as a teenager and I enjoyed it even more on subsequent rereadings. It makes the world of 19th century Russia seem strangely familiar and it gives many a current political thread a grounding in meaningful history.

One of the things you can assume when you write about Shakespeare--given the hundreds of thousands of pages that have already been written about him in countless books, essays, theses and term papers--is that whatever you say will have been said before, and then denounced, defended , revised and denounced again, ad infinitum. So I'm certain I'm not breaking any new ground here. King Lear, though many, including David Denby (see Orrin's review of Great Books) and Harold Bloom consider it the pinnacle of English Literature, has just never done much for me. I appreciate the power of the basic plot--an aging King divides his realm among his ungrateful children with disastrous results--which has resurfaced in works as varied as Jane Smiley's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, A Thousand Acres (see Orrin's review), and Akira Kurosawa's last great film, Ran. But I've always found the play to be too busy, the characters to be too unsympathetic, the speeches to be unmemorable and the tragedy to be too shallow. By shallow, I mean that by the time we meet Lear he is already a petulant old man, we have to accept his greatness from the word of others. Then his first action in the play, the division of the kingdom, is so boneheaded and his reaction to Cordelia so selfishly blind, that we're unwilling to credit their word.

Then there's the fact that Shakespeare essentially uses the action of the play as a springboard for an examination of madness. The play was written during the period when Shakespeare was experimenting with obscure meanings anyway; add in the demented babble of several of the central characters, including Lear, and you've got a drama whose language is just about impossible to follow. Plus you've got seemingly random occurrences like the disappearance of the Fool and Edgar's pretending to help his father commit suicide. I am as enamored of the Bard as anyone, but it's just too much work for an author to ask of his audience trying to figure out what the heck they are all saying and what their actions are supposed to convey. So I long ago gave up trying to decipher the whole thing and I simply group it with the series of non-tragic tragedies (along with MacBeth, Hamlet, Julius Caesar), which I think taken together can be considered to make a unified political statement about the importance of the regular transfer of power in a state. Think about it for a moment; there's no real tragedy in what happens to Caesar, MacBeth, Hamlet or Lear; they've all proven themselves unfit for rule. Nor are the fates of those who usurp power from Caesar, Hamlet and Lear at all tragic, with the possible exception of Brutus, they pretty much get what they have coming to them. Instead, the real tragedy lies in the bloody chain of events that each illegitimate claiming of power unleashes. The implied message of these works, when considered as a unified whole, is that deviance from the orderly transfer of power leads to disaster for all concerned. (Of particular significance to this analysis in regards to King Lear is the fact that it was written in 1605, the year of the Gunpowder Plot.)

In fact, looking at Lear from this perspective offers some potential insight into several aspects of the play that have always bothered me. For instance, take the rapidity with which Lear slides into insanity. This transition has never made much sense to me. But now suppose that Lear is insane before the action of the play begins and that the clearest expression of his loss of reason is his decision to shatter his own kingdom. Seen in this light, there is no precipitous decline into madness; the very act of splitting up the central authority of his throne, of transferring power improperly, is shown to be a sign of craziness.

Next, consider the significance of Edgar's pretense of insanity and of Lear's genuine dementia. What is the possible meaning of their wanderings and their reduction to the status of common fools, stripped of luxury and station? And what does it tell us that it is after they are so reduced that Lear's reason (i.e. his fitness to rule) is restored and that Edgar ultimately takes the throne. It is probably too much to impute this meaning to Shakespeare, but the text will certainly bear the interpretation that they are made fit to rule by gaining an understanding of the lives of common folk. This is too democratic a reading for the time, but I like it, and it is emblematic of Shakespeare's genius that his plays will withstand even such idiosyncratic interpretations.

To me, the real saving grace of the play lies not in the portrayal of the fathers, Lear and Gloucester, nor of the daughters, but rather in that of the sons. First, Edmund, who ranks with Richard III and Iago in sheer joyous malevolence. Second, Edgar, whose ultimate ascent to the throne makes all that has gone before worthwhile. He strikes me as one of the truly heroic characters in all of Shakespeare, as exemplified by his loyalty to his father and to the King. I've said I don't consider the play to be particularly tragic; in good part this is because it seems the nation is better off with Edgar on the throne than with Lear or one of his vile daughters.

Even a disappointing, and often bewildering, tragedy by Shakespeare is better than the best of many other authors (though I'd not say the same of his comedies.) So of course I recommend it, but I don't think as highly of it as do many of the critics.

GRADE : B-

When rating Shakespeare, I always rate his works as compared to other Shakespearean works; otherwise, the consistently high marks wouldn't be very informative. For instance, if this were to be rated against the general run of literature extant, it would certainly rate five stars. Even by the standard I'm using, it's close.

Like "Hamlet", this is a tragedy that still manages to have some very funny lines; as in "Hamlet", this is generally due to characters either pretending to be crazy, or truly being crazy, so it's something of a dark humor, but humorous it still is. Lear's jester has some great lines doing what only a jester could get away with (and what the reader wants to do): telling the King that he's an idiot when he's done something ignorant beyond belief. Edgar, son of Gloucester, banished by his father for supposed treason, plays the part of a mad beggar to save his life, and when Lear, honestly crazy from grief, meets up with him, their conversations rival anything in Hamlet for manic nonsense that still manages to make a certain warped and poigniant sense.

It's a shame that the language has changed so much since Shakespeare's time, so that the masses are unable to enjoy and appreciate his wit; his plays were not written to be enjoyed only by the literati; they were intended to entertain and, yes, enlighten the masses as well as the educated; his plots seem to be right in line with either modern romantic comedies (in his comedies) or modern soap operas (in his tragedies). Modern audiences would love him, if only they could understand him; unfortunately, when one "modernizes" the language in a Shakespearean play, what one is left with is no longer Shakespeare, but simply a modern adaptation. Which, if done well, is not without value, but is still far short of the original.

"Nothing will come of nothing" the fatal line Lear utters to Cordelia sums up the entire play. The wizened king believes he is urging Cordelia not to refrain from expressing her love for him when in fact he is unwittingly prompting her to use the same insincere flattery as her sisters. When Cordelia refuses to acquiesce to Lear's wishes, he banishes her from the kingdom and divides it among her nefarious sisters Goneril and Reagan. In doing this Lear accepts their empty flattery instead of Cordelia's austere profession of paternal love. Goneril and Reagan quickly betray Lear and then turn against each other. Thus Lear's preference for empty flattery (nothing) destroys his authority and embroils his kingdom in civil strife (generates nothing).

This theme runs like a thread through other parts of the play. Gloucester's blindness toward the nature of his sons results in his literal blindness later in the play. Metaphorical blindness generates physical blindness (nothing comes of nothing). Similarly, after Edgar is banished he avoids further harm by shedding his identity and disguising himself as a vagrant. In the new order of things eliminating one's status results in no harm (another version of nothing coming from nothing).

The motif of nothing coming from nothing has psychological and political ramifications for the play. From a psychological point of view Lear fails to realize that the type of adulating love he wants from Cordelia no longer exists because Cordelia is no longer a child. Her refusal to flatter Lear is, in a sense, an act of adolescent rebellion. Lear's failure to recognize the fact that Cordelia still loves him but not with the totality of a child proves to be his undoing. From a political point of view the fact that Lear divides his kingdom on the basis of protocol (who is the most flattering) instead of reality (whose words can he really trust) also proves to be his undoing. The fact that Lear sees what he wants to see instead of what he should see is the fulcrum of destruction throughout the play.

It is interesting to note that "King Lear" was staged barely one generation after England endured a bitter war of succession (The War of the Roses). The sight of Lear proclaiming his intention to divide his kingdom must have shocked contemporary audiences in the same manner that a play about appeasing fascists might disturb us today.