This book is loaded with convincing and picturesque details of life at sea in a small fishing boat, and details particular to the time. But these are the book's best points.

Characters are 2-dimensional and relatively unconvincing, the prose is loaded with jargon (interesting and picturesque jargon, but still jargon), and the story line, though believable, is uninspired.

The basic tale is this: a spoiled rich brat falls off a luxury liner, and is saved from death in the depths by a small fishing boat. On the boat, for the first time in his life the brat must follow orders, and do some real work. It's a good basis for a story, but done unrealistically. (If you want to see the same basic idea done well, read "Sand", by Will James) The supposedly incorrigible brat converts overnight, and begins doing his best to learn the ropes. The conflict is over instantly, and all that is left to the book is the details of day-to-day on the fishing boat, with an occasional adventure.

It's not terrible; it is believable in most ways, loaded with interesting detail, and has a satisfying ending. But it has little or none of Kipling's more typical tales' whimsy and grace of language.

Captains Courageous is a wonderful story of a pampered and indulged boy, the son of a millionaire, named Harvey Cheyne. He has no responsibilities and is given anything he wants. He lacks respect for anyone and that includes himself. He is washed overboard from a luxury liner while on a trip with his mother and is picked up by a fisherman. The fishing boat can not return him immediately because they have a crew that needs to earn a living. Harvey's family presumes that he is dead, drowned at sea. The story of Harvey's growing up involves responsibilty, hard work, trust and honor. Rudyard Kipling tells the story marvelously. The story is brilliantly crafted and a pure delight to read. The language of the story gives it the feel of the times and helps illustrate the rough lifestyles involved. This is a grand morality tale of adventure, human nature and the value of real love. I read this as a young teenager, but now (many years later!!) I see what an awesome author Kipling truly was!!!! This is a book to be read again!

Many people say this is a boring book, or has no story line, or is just about someone working their b---- off, but I found it to be a *wonderful* book.

Harvey Cheyne is a spoiled brat who falls off a ship and is picked up by a small fishing boat. Since the boat can't possibly go back to port without getting a full load of fish Harvey will have to wait. Meanwhile, since he _is_ eating their food (the man who does not work shall not eat...), they quickly have him join in on the work aboard ship. He goes against it at first, but gradually comes to see what really matters in life. It's not how much money you have- but how you affect those around you. Harvey learns diligence and plain, hard work. Sure- it's not always a ton of fun, but no one said life was pure fun. He learns many lessons through different experiences. I found this to be *very* enjoyable. I also liked reading about the different descriptions of how fishing was done back then.

All in all, this made for a very fascinating read, and I recommend it to anyone!

Never mind the film versions; the original unabridged Swiss Family Robinson is an exciting epic with a lot in it for the whole family.

Our third grade teacher read to us from this book every day and I could hardly wait for the next installment. Finally I got my own copy for a birthday gift, sat on the couch and read it cover to cover in one go. I still have this book, decades later.

From the opening, thrilling tempest scene to the very end and the "rescue", this book has plenty of action as well as creative solutions to problems. There is a lot of material for discussion, how the family solved problems, how they handled disagreements, adversity, disappointment, building of character.

This book definitely teaches values along with the adventure and the values are linked in such a way as to be an integral part of the story.

And Swiss Family Robinson is never boring. There is always an exciting new beast to be discovered, a new plant to use for food or clothing, a new machine or tool to be built, a new part of the island to explore. This is a wonderful book to read out loud to kids until they are old enough to enjoy reading it themselves. If you are bored with re-runs on TV, turn off the box and spend a half-hour or hour every evening reading this aloud. Everyone will have a great time, and kids who are read to, become readers themselves.

There's not many classic books that are more well known than "The Swiss Family Robinson." A Swiss family is stranded on an uninhabited island and there doesn't seem to be any rescues that are lingering around the corner for many years. Soon the family is taming tons of new pets, fighting off animals such as anacondas and lions, and learning how to basically survive off the land the best they can. The Robinson family must keep an eye out for danger while also starting a whole new way of life for themselves.

I thought "The Swiss Family Robinson" was a spectacular adventure/survival book. You can say that the book is pretty much a long diary that is kept by the father of the family of everything that happens to them on the island. The book I read did have many references to God unlike some of the abridged editions. The only thing I didn't like about "The Swiss Family Robinson" is that when the family starts collecting and taming many animals that they find on the island, it gets a little tough to keep up with all the animals' names, but that wasn't bad enough to take anything away from the book for me.

I recommend anybody who likes survival or adventure books, especially if you like reading the classics, to get "The Swiss Family Robinson." I would recommend getting an unabridged version of the book if you can so you won't miss a word.

But let's be clear right up front. My 5-star rating of this book applies only to the original unabridged version in Johann Wyss' own words. The modernized versions are watered down, time-wasters for word wusses.

When I was nine years old I spent months struggling through this book for the first time. The old style language made for rough going, but I persevered. In the end I was rewarded with more than a classic tale marvelously told; I discovered a love of books and earned self-respect for tackling a tough read.

If I was a teacher whose task it was to introduce students to classic literature, I would skip Dickens and use this book. Kids love adventure, animals, and action. Swiss Family Robinson has it all. It's really a thriller disguised as a literary classic. All book lovers should read this one at least once.

And please don't watch the Disney movie and claim you've "been there, did that" on this story. The movie is totally different and in no way compares.

A reviewer below states that Shakespeare's literary value is unquestioned. This is patent nonsense. Every year, untold numbers of people (students, etc.) are forced to read him by trained teachers and they still end up questioning his value. Let's examine the Shakespeare cult:
1) Any author who needs an interpreter, explainer, or support from the educational system to keep readers is simply not a vital author. If Shakespeare was a vital author, people would love him without the brainwashing and spoonfeeding of a vast educational system that insists on teaching these tired plays year after year because everyone has done so year after year.
2) Silly romances and boring dramas driven by improbable plots and vulgar jokes are not great literature. These plays are the work of a man who spent far too much time on scandal and trivial junk to be taken seriously.
3) The Shakespeare nuts want it both ways and they can't have it either way. On the one hand, they insist that Shakespeare be regarded with the reverence one would give to holy scripture. No one must dare question its greatness, truthfulness, or entertainment value. If you do so, you will be attacked as a philistine. On the other hand, when people believe this nonsense and stay away from Shakespeare because they do not want to be bored, the cultists insist that we are taking it too seriously and that Shakespeare is simply great theatre (when it is nothing of the sort) which can be enjoyed with as much gusto as a rock concert or a stand up comedy act (which is a lie).
4) Any book that needs a glossary for the reader in order to be understandable must either be abandoned as dated or translated into modern English. The Shakespeare nuts wouldn't insist that anyone read Beowulf in Old English or argue that its Old English language is so beautiful that we all must learn what is now a foreign language to us but they do this when it comes to Shakespeare. This is beyond irrational. Imagine being forced to read a viking saga in Old Norse with only a glossary to assist you because the professor happens to love the cadences of Old Norse. This is no different from the nuts who do the same with Shakespeare.
5) I judge literature on two, and only two, criterion: Is it intriguing? Is it entertaining? I don't give a fig about some academic telling me I need to read something because it is hitorically important. I doubt that Shakespeare's audience paid to see his plays because they had historical importance and neither will I. Alas, what was entertaining even twenty years ago seems dated and boring today, nevermind what may have been entertaining hundreds of years ago. Old jokes lose their punch, old romances become foolish and insipid with time, old dramas about historical figures become irrelevant and sleep inducing, old concerns no longer concern us. Shakespeare is dated, unfunny, boring.
And no amount of forcing the issue will change that. Free Shakespeare from the support of the educational system and watch him become forgotten as quickly as last years fashions. And I say, "good riddance" to an author who should have been relegated to the trash heap at least a century ago.

The very idea of reviewing or giving stars to Shakespeare in this format is superfluous: he is the epitome of English literature. The source and inspiration for many subsequent classics, the well from which many popular expressions have sprung, the basis for many brilliant (and not-so-brilliant) stage and film renditions of these classics -- Shakespeare's literary greatness lies universally ackwnoledged and unquestioned. In reviewing any edition of the man's works, then, the reviewer's task is not to comment upon the work itself, but the presentation. This Gramercy edition of The Complete Works (yes, that's all 37 plays -- comedies, histories, and tragedies -- as well as all of the poems, sonnets included) is the most popular and widely-available -- and inexpensive -- version available. Is it the best? Well, no. Other reviews of this edition have commented upon its shortcomings -- extremely small print; very tight and hard-to-read layout; no margins for notes; no footnotes or annotations; no background information on the plays; errors, typos, and generally questionable editing. That said, this edition may have what you're looking for. It does indeed contain the complete works; it also has a few other small incentives: a hard cover that looks great on a bookshelf, a built-in bookmarker, and various illustrations. Clearly, this is not an omnibus for the Shakespeare scholar. If you want an edition of the bard for in-depth study or for academic use, you are better off buying more expansive editions of the individual plays themselves, with plenty of background info, notes, annotations, and space for your own writing; or else one of the more expensive editions of the Complete Works. That said, if you are just looking for a Shakespeare book that has all of his works in one place, that is convenient and, above all, inexpensive -- or you just want a Shakespeare tome sitting on your dust-ridden bookshelf to impress friends -- then you could do worse than picking up this.

Few writers in history have been able to come close to matching Shakespeare's astounding flair for writing, and this volume is the perfect compliment to his talent. The engravings inside are beautiful, and the plays, even without their numbers and their footnotes, are still as incredible as they ever were. To those of you who say that Shakespeare is boring, you're not really understanding his work, or you are simply unable to appreciate anything this old. I highly recommend this particular edition

Mark Twain was a true American original and one of the true titanic figures of American literature. He was also, as anyone who bothers to dig beneath the "The-guy-who-wrote-Tom-Sawyer-and-Huck-Finn" surface knows, a man who held distinct and perhaps slightly provocative political opinions. One of the things Mark most detested was monarchy - once calling it "the grotesquest swindle ever invented by man." In his later highly controversial novel, A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur's Court, he took on the concept in a viscious and fearless adult satire. In this, his earlier novel, The Prince and The Pauper, Twain did the same thing while aiming principally at younger readers. The story, while featuring a lot of dialect in Middle English, is written in fairly simple and straight-forward prose, which, thus, opens the book up to readers both young and old. The novel's oft-forgotten original subtitle, A Tale For Young People of All Ages, perfectly sums up the books' merits: while this novel may have been written, primarily, with a young target audience in mind, it can also be enjoyed and appreciated by adults. Though it is novel length, the style in which it is written reflects that of classic fairy tales, and will probably be appealing to any child who likes to read. Adults, on the other hand, will note and appreciate the books' deeper underlying meanings, as well as Twain's ever-present wit. This book is very well-written; Twain, a master writer, was, alas, sometimes prone to clumsy prose in his novels - but not here. The Prince and the Pauper is practically a tour-de-force of character development and suspense in plotting. Reccommended to younger readers looking to broaden their horizons, as well as Twain fans of any age.

As a final thing worth mentioning, many reviewers here have commented that, owing to its use of dialect (something which Mark Twain uses in every single one of his writings, which is part of the reason why he was such a great writer - not to mention why he is the true father of real American literature), it is hard to understand. If these assertions have bothered you, however, rest assured: they are mightly over-exaggerated. The dialogue, though prevalent, is minor, and the meanings of the words are usually obvious - even to children; after all, one must remember who Twain wrote this book for. Most children who would read this book would probably already be familar with these elementary colloquial phrases from the many King Arthur stories derived from Malory. And, even if not, Twain foresaw this - and was helpful enough to include a useful appendix.

Mark Twain's, The Prince and the Pauper is a classic look back into sixteenth-century English society. Tom Canty is a young boy who is born into poverty and is forced to beg in the streets of London by his father. Edward Tudor is the Prince of Wales, heir to the throne. Both of these boys were born on the same day but grew up in opposite ways of life. One day Tom is dreaming about being a prince and starts walking towards the royal palace. When he reaches the palace the guards try to stop him but Prince Edward sees Tom's condition and invites him to his quarters to hear what Tom has to say. While they sit there they begin to realize what strong resemblance there is between them and decide to switch clothes to fulfill Tom's dream of looking Princely. All of a sudden Edward storms out of the room to denounce the guards who did harm to Tom, only to be mistaken as the poor pauper and locked out of the royal palace. From here on out the two boys experience what life is like in the other's shoes. Mark Twain does an outstanding job of developing each character and showing how each must learn new ideas to deal with their latest way of life. Unfortunately I did find myself losing my concentration while reading this book. This easily could have been due to the fact that the way Twain wrote The Prince and the Pauper was actually on a very easy reading level, which would lead me to recommend this book to readers of middle school age who enjoy adventurous tales like The Boxcar Children or The Hardy Boys.

The Prince and the Pauper written by Mark Twain is an adventurous, exciting book. The book takes place in London around the 1500's. Two boys were born on the same day, Tom Canty and Edward Tudor. Tom Canty was born unto a poor life, and as a boy growing up, "Tom's reading and dreaming about princely life wrought such a strong effect upon him that he began to act the prince." And just his luck, did he happen to some across the Prince of Wales, after suffering the hard blow of the soldier knocking him into the crowd. The Prince of Wales is Edward Tudor, the other boy born on the same day but born into a rich and wealthy family. As a result from the encounter, the two boys decide to switch places, as the Prince of Wales says to Tom Canty, "Doff thy rags and don these splendors."
The book describes the boys' adventures throughout the experience of living each other's lives. As the Prince of Wales lives as the pauper, he is introduced to and learns about many different people such as the Canty family, Miles Hendon, a troop of Vagabonds, Hugo, the peasants, the hermit, and others. And as Tom Canty acts as the Prince of Wales, he experiences living the higher life of royalty, being treated with respect and given so many opportunities and choices.
Through having the plot be that the characters switch places, the book is more exciting because the reader could act in the character's place and experience the lifestyles and adventures involved with each person's life. Other than being able to understand better each person's lifestyle with the type of writing, using dialogue in Old English adds a stronger effect to bringing everything back in time to understand the setting. Although at times, the Old English could get confusing.
Overall, I thought that this book was interesting because it explains the lifestyles of different people in London around the 1500's in a way that is fun and easy to understand. Although at times, I did feel as if it carried on too much about things that were insignificant. Other than that, the book was good and I would recommend that it be read, if you are interested in adventure.
Other adventure books written by Mark Twain, such as The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, were also interesting, but I enjoyed reading The Prince and the Pauper more because it contained more excitement for me.

I was tricked into reading this book due to it being a well known classic and from a desire to read a good romantic story which I thought it would be. Well, um, IT'S NOT.

I like to read books that draw me right into the story and then a couple of hours later you notice you are turning page 250 when the last you recall touching was page 97. This book was not like that at all. Unfortunately, I was always conscious that I was reading print from a page but kept reminding myself that a book this famous had to get good sooner or later. Far from not being able to put it down, I found myself often looking to see what page I was on and if I had read my quota for the night. It never did get good and when I had finished the last sentence I felt frustrated and cheated.

I worried that my lack of appreciation for this classic must be due to my inferior intellect and that I must after all be just some obtuse hill-billy. Thankfully I found that several people who had offered their reviews here shared my opinions for this book and I was quite relieved that I was not alone in my reaction.

For me, Lawrence's supremely descriptive, possibly brilliant (although I really wouldn't know) and flowery writing is all for not because of selfish, unlikeable and unbelieveable characters who don't really do anything. At the very end, the only care I had for anyone in the book was poor little Winifred. I hope she was alright.

In conclusion may I suggest that you pass on Women in Love and read instead Far From the Madding Crowd by Thomas Hardy. It is so much more a wonderful book about believable, likeable, women in love.

OK, the title for this review may be a little harsh, but the image is hard to shake from my mind. Imagine the close-ups used in a soap opera to show you the intense anguish and inner turmoil the characters feel. Usually, there is pensive expressions which sometimes border on the ludicrous. In "Women in Love" I can't help imagining Lawrence using the same thing. There is a narrative, there is action, but a lot of the book belongs inside the characters. We see Gudrun looking out at the snow covered valley with a feeling of awe, we hear Birkin go through endless thoughts of the ineffable thing he is looking for but can't state clearly, and we watch Gerald trying to find the next big problem he can solve. Throughout all this ruminating, we, the viewer, must be watching something. Hence, we look at the soap opera close-ups of the Brangwens, Criches, and Birkin.

This is not a bad book, but not a book which moves me like others of Lawrence. This book was a continuation of "The Rainbow," but it does not give you the span of time. The novel is primarily focused on Ursula, Gudrun, Rupert, and Gerald. I miss seeing how things work through time. You still have elements from Lawrence's other novels (like dancing uninhibitedly with nature), but it seems as if he is giving us too much information on just a few people. I feel he has more effect with "The Rainbow."

I agree that you do not need to read "The Rainbow" first. Lawrence is a thorough writer, so many times I found myself rereading passages to better understand what he is trying to tell me.

The Wordsworth Classics are inexpensive, but they do not have a lot of room in the margins for notes. This is a good volume to buy for a read, but not for a study.

Although you do not need to read "The Rainbow" to read this, I would recommend reading "Women in Love" if you have read "The Rainbow." It is interesting to watch how Lawrence develops the women after giving you their history.

First of all, I have to own you up that reading Women in Love was one of the best experiences on books that I ever had. I know it's not Lawurence's masterpiece, but I touched me very deep. Everthing seems to wok in this book, from the characters to their enviroment.

It seems to me that Lawrence took daily events and showed them the way they are: unglamourised. He showed me what love and support seem to be. It's not about being happy all the time or that kind of love that happens only in movies. The book deals with the ordinary love, the one that normal human beings have the chance to face.

Following the experience of both couples made me see how different love can be and it is the still the same. I could perfectly understand all the worries and anxiets Gudrun had. And I think Gerald and she made quite a couple! Yet Birkin and Ursula look very nice together since the begin. Their love is not as 'wild' as the other couple's, but it is very strong indeed.

When the book was over I got down because I had to let them go. Following the lives of such people for a few days made quite an impression on me. Even though they may not be XXI century people like us, they have the same essence we do.

All in all, I know this review may read very emotive and personal, but this is a book that I couldn't apart in other to write about

Nathaniel Hawthorne's "House of the Seven Gables" is an enjoyable read for anyone interested in classic American literature. Some readers consider Hawthorne's meticulous style of describing settings and characters frustrating, but they fail to realize that the story "The House of the Seven Gables" is in fact, settings and characters. The reader must realize that this book was written in 1851, so it lacks the showmanship of explosions and flying poltergeists, but if properly embraced, "The House of the Seven Gables" is a very enjoyable read. As I read this book, I felt that Hepzibah and Clifford were not the only characters attempting to rid themselves of a family curse. I felt that Hawthorne himself was attempting to exorcise the guilt brought on by his ancestor, John Hawthorne, who had presided over the Salem Witch Trials, hundred of years prior.

This book is really good. Very deep mystery about a dying witch's curse. It's not a fast-moving thriller, by a slow and methodical one. Every word is chosen so carefully by Hawthorne, that it is fun to read and a challenge for the mind to find the hidden meaning. The novel starts with a discription of the house- the house with human attributes and ends with a lone cat watching the fulfillment of a witch's curse. Really excellent. There's plenty of characterization, hints of incest, and omenious surrounding to keep the reader entertained. Love love loved it, read it in a college American literature class.

The story of "The House of Seven Gables" begins in the midst of Puritan New England (which Hawthorne paints characteristically, and forgiveably, quite bleak) with the fantastic tale of a severe dispute between stern Colonel Pyncheon and alleged wizard Matthew Maule over a piece of land. Maule is conveniently executed (while cursing Pyncheon) for his "crimes", and Pyncheon builds Seven Gables on the aforesaid land. Several years later, the colonel dies suddenly, supposedly the mark of Maule's curse, which is to forever haunt the Pyncheon mansion.

Several generations of Pyncheons come and go, and the family decays and whithers until it can boast only four remaining members, two of which are old and frail. But one, a Judge Pyncheon, rotten under his trim exterior, is up to unsurfaced mischief.

The story tends to move slowly (much of the meat of the plot is not encountered until nearly half-way through!), but every word bears weight. Hawthorne weaves his story in such a way that every moment spent getting to know the characters is crucial. Neither is the slow development boring: far from it! Relax, enjoy the pace, and allow yourself to feast on Hawthorne's brilliant prose. As Henry James once stated, "The House of Seven Gables" is "the closest approach we are likely to have to the Great American Novel."

I hated reading Dickens in high school, and I was never able to get past the first chapter of any of his books, including this one. Now that I'm in my mid-30's, I want to re-visit a lot of the works that I had no patience for as a teenager, so I read Hard Times. Although there are many flaws to this book, I felt proud to have finally cleared the Dickens hurdle. Dickens is excellent at creating sympathetic (and evil) characters, even though they may be slightly cliche or wooden. The fact is, Dickens is able to hook you in with his plots and create a profound concern on behalf of the reader that the good guy (or girl) wins and the bad guy suffers. A lot of the twists in this book were a little "too convenient" and implausible to make it a crowining work of literature, but nevertheless it has motivated me to move on to Dickens' larger, more daunting works. If you are having any trepidation about tackling Dickens, Hard Times is a good place to start.

Here is a stunning indictment of soot-covered early Victorian England. Its relevance today though should not be underestimated. Parallels abound both here at home and the world over. Hard Times is brilliant and multifaceted. Dickens is both dreadfully serious and stingingly witty. And yes, a thorough Marxist reading is certainly possible. Dickens cared deeply about the world in which he lived and his humanity shines through in every line. This book, and all that Dickens wrote, is worthwhile if only for the beauty of the prose. Those forced to read it in school are unlikely to see its value as anyone forced to do anything against the will is going to be resentful and rejecting. Be deeply suspicious though of the reader from Madison Wisconsin, Hitler, or anyone who advises the literal trashing of books.

Dickens creates a novel that virtually revolutionizes literature of the 1800's. At a time where most writers wrote in a stuffy prose full of unrealities and a jaded outlook, Dickens dares to tell with honesty what he sees through his window.

Hard Times has yet a misleading title. It gives one ideas of harshness, depression, poverty, and social decline--although the actual reality of then-London, still not something you would choose to read. However, Hard Times has as much depression and poverty as any of Dickens' other works. It is just in this case that Dickens chooses to remind the world that in the deepest despair there is beauty yet to be seen.

Dickens was a strange author. In his supposedly inspiring books, you get an overdose of sadness, and in his depressing books, you find beauty. It is this case with Hard Times.

It is a poor, honest man's search for justice in a world where only the rich have merit. It is a girl's search for true love while battling the arranged marriage for money. And lastly, a woman's search for recognition against her favored, yet dishonest brother. It is these searches that at last come together and become fufilled. And, while at the same time telling a captivating story, it comments on the then--and still now--presence of greed and total dishonesty one has to go through for money.

The title of this review sums up Hard Times. Its beauty comes from the pure searches for truth, the sorrow comes from the evil the characters most overcome to get there, and the honesty is both the truth with which Dickens portrays life and the the overwhelming truth that these protaganists create.

Holly Burke, PhD.

Clinical Psychologist, Abnormal Psych. Professor

Georgetown University, Johns Hopkins Inst.

I recently read the Henry James novel, Daisy Miller, as an assigned reading for my high school English class. Although, I tend not to like the classics that much, I would recommend this book, especially to high school students. This book appears to build on the author's interest with psychology. While the theme is pretty obvious, the clash between reality and appearance, it holds the readers attention. In fact, this could be compared to many movie plots or the Real World TV show on MTV. The "ugly" American that travels to Europe. In the process, offending many because of their lack of knowledge of the culture. The Europeans never look beyond the surface. The theme seems like an everyday occurrence.

The story is the difference between appearance and reality. The Europeans, represented by his aunt, only see the superficial and are overly judgmental. They do not see the innocence in Daisy. They regard her as vulgar. Frederick is torn between his friends and relatives who are critical of the apparent loose morals of Daisy. She socializes with men unescorted and stays out very late. She disregards the social mores of the time and the culture she is visiting. Daisy doesn't care about appearances while Frederick cares a great deal about the matter. He has to leave for his home in Geneva, and promises to see Daisy in Rome that winter. In late January, Frederick arrives in Rome to be told by his aunt that Daisy has not changed and is associating with Italian men! Her comments are unflattering towards Daisy. The tone is one of disapproval and suggests immoral behavior.

Isn't this one our main faults of judging people on the appearance? An online reviewer of Daisy Miller commented "...The unreliable narrator is here in his full glory. I say "his" because in Daisy Miller, the masculinist bias of the narrator is the only reason for the story to exist. There is no plot. The standard critical drivel about "American" vs "European" girls is absurd...." Isn't it obvious that this was written in the late 1800's? That was the way of life of that time. However, it still is a tendency of this era only more understated.

I read this book as part of an English course on late-19th and 20th century American literature. It's the first time I've read a novel by Henry James, having so far only seen the movie adaptations of 'Portrait of a Lady' and 'Washington Square'. Having been wary of reading James (because of his reputation for dense, convoluted prose) I was surprised at this novel's relatively brisk plot and overall readability. The story itself, ostensibly a simple one about one man's inability to understand a seemingly complicated woman, also has interesting things to say about gender, class and the relationship between the United States (personified by the heroine) and the rest of the Western world. I was actually somewhat amazed that the image of America created through the characterization of Daisy Miller still rings true 125 years after this book's publication.

I hadn't read James for about eight years or so when I came across a copy of Daisy Miller in a pile of discarded books at a local university. It sat on my shelf for a while longer, as I knew full well that James writes in thick sentences, making up for the lack of volume by quite a bit.

What I found was what I have come to expect from James, even in his early works. This book does a great deal in terms of pulling together many levels of interpretaion: Old World versus New World, common versus exclusive, and also the chaser and the chased.

This last viewpoint in particular is what stuck with me. We have a young girl, and a young man. They meet once for a few days, and the young man becomes utterly fixated on her, if for any other reason that she is playing, in his view, hard to get. When she turns her attention elsewhere, the ante is doubled and tripled when, for a variety of reasons most likely centered around our young hero Winterbourne, the American society in Rome starts to give our heroin the "cold shoulder". Given that James writes most often to examine the person most in focus in the novel, I tend to atribute most of the troubles of this young girl to both herself and Winterbourne, not just the society of the time. This is far from a safe academic interpretation, however.

The notes included in the book are helpful for getting into the mindset of the typical reader of James' day, but are not distracting. Overall, this would probably be suitible for an ambitios middle school student, and just right for most high school students.

This book is a persistent favorite, and I admit to enjoying it tremendously as a school student. However, "Looking Backward" would not be read today if it weren't for Bellamy's extraordinary vision of a socialist utopia that was in stark contrast to the realities created by 20th Century Communism.

Bellamy himself wanted to distance himself from "Das Kapital", published 40 years before "Looking Backward." The godless society was not his vision; instead he created a perfect society of people who were naturally good, and, with the proper upbringing and values instilled, would report for their assignment in the work corp, deal unselfishly with their neighbors and work hard and selflessly for the common good. Obviously, Bellamy was not a student of human psychology, nor a keen observer of children, who exhibit cruelty and selfish nature pretty much as soon as they can walk.

The story is badly written as a novel--Bellamy relies on stilted conversation for exposition of his ideas and the idea of a mesmerized insomniac sleeping peacefully and unagingly for years locked away in an insulated capsule while his house burned down around him is silly even by science fiction standards. Nevertheless, the vision of symphony concerts piped in by advanced technology (radio broadcasts and sterophonic sound), the distribution of goods by automated means is extraordinarily prescient, even if these enterprises today are for profit and not free for the taking as in "Looking Backward."

Despite the fantasy, the total lack of understanding of human nature and the clumsy writing, this book is still an enjoyable version of Utopia and especially fun for younger readers.

I grew up on science fiction, and many years ago read this book and was utterly unimpressed. Over the years, at SF conventions, I would ask other fans if they had read this book. Now these are fans who could regale you with quotes from Star Trek, or Star Wars, and who often had read most of Larry Niven or Andre Norton. But "Looking Backward"? Bellamy? Many had never heard of the book or the author. Those who had read the book often shared my opinion. By comparison, all I asked had read "Time Machine" by Wells, and had seen the movie.

I think it is instructive to compare the two books. Written within a few years of each other, with Bellamy's actually being the first, why did "Time Machine" live on, and the other being relegated to a well deserved obscurity? In fact, "Time Machine" is generally considered the first famous novel that describes the concept of time travel.

Try reading the two books consecutively. Well's story is gripping and dramatic. Bellamy's seems stilted and ponderous. Part of this is just the differences in literary style in the intervening century. But "Time Machine" is still a dashing read. Bellamy's text is a thinly wrapped polemic; a hosanna to his vision of a socialistic utopia. Most of the book is a hectoring lecture as to how late twentieth century Boston is a secular paradise, with the evils of capitalism just a historial curiosity. For one thing, books on utopia do not sell well. Regardless of your personal political beliefs, a book that is soothing and tranquil lacks a certain vivacity and drama.

This book is significant today, but NOT as science fiction. Rather as a guidepost to the socialistic beliefs of a certain subculture of a past century.

Don't hold your breath waiting for the movie!

Having never really heard of this novel or its author before, I was rather surprised to discover how immensely popular it was at the end of the nineteenth century. Edward Bellamy does an excellent albeit sometimes pedantic job of communicating his socioeconomic views and provides an interesting and informative read, despite the fact that the utopia of his fictional creation is a socialist nightmare in the realm of my own personal philosophy. It is very important to understand the time in which Bellamy was writing, especially for a conservative-minded thinker such as myself who holds many of Bellamy's views as anathema. It was the mid-1880s, a time of great social unrest; vast strikes by labor unions, clashes between workers and managers, a debilitating economic depression. Bellamy, to his credit, in no way comes off as holier than thou; his wealthy protagonist recognizes his own responsibility in seeing the world in the eyes of the more prosperous classes, basically ignoring the plights of the poor and downtrodden, having inherited rather than earned the money he is privileged to enjoy, etc. This makes the character's observations and conclusions very impactful upon the reader.

While I do respect Bellamy's views and understand the context in which they germinated, I cannot help but describe his future utopia as nothing less than naïve, socialistic, unworkable, and destructive of the individual spirit. Indeed, it sounds to me like vintage Soviet communism, at least in its ideals. Bellamy is a Marxist with blinders on. I should describe the actual novel at this point. The protagonist, an insomniac having employed a mesmerist to help him sleep through the night, finds himself waking up not the following morning in 1887 but in a completely changed world in 2000. His bed chamber was a subterranean fortress of sorts which only he, his servant, and the mesmerist (who left the city that same night) even knew about, and apparently his home proper burned down on that fateful night and thus his servant was clearly unable to bring him out of his trance the following morning. It is only by accident that Dr. Leekes of twentieth-century Boston discovers the unknown tomb and helps resuscitate its remarkable inhabitant. 20th-century life is wholly unlike anything the protagonist has ever known, and the book basically consists of a number of instruction sessions by the Leekes as to how society has been virtually perfected over the preceding 100 years. There is no more war, crime, unhappiness, discrimination, etc. There are no such things as wages or prices, even. All men and women are paid the same by virtue of their being human beings; while money does not exist, everyone has everything they possibly need easily available to them for purchase with special credit cards. Every part of the economy is controlled by the national government, and it is through cooperation of the brotherhood of men that production has exceeded many times over that of privately controlled industries fighting a war against each other in the name of capitalism.

Bellamy's future utopia is most open to question in terms of the means by which individualism is supposedly strengthened rather than smothered, how a complex but seemingly set of incentives supposedly keep each worker happy and productive, how invention or improvement of anything is possible in such a world, and how this great society does not in fact become a mirror of Khrushchev's Russian state. Such a society consisting of an "industrial army" and controlled in the minutest of terms by a central national authority simply sounds like Communism to my ears and is equally as unsustainable. Of course, Bellamy wrote this novel many years before the first corruptions of Marx's dangerous dreams were made a reality on earth. As I said, I disagree with just about everything Bellamy praises, and I think almost anyone would agree his utopia is an impossibility, but I greatly respect the man for his bold, humanitarian vision and applaud his efforts to make the world a better place. In fact, many groups organized themselves along the lines of the world Bellamy envisioned, so the novel's influence on contemporary popular thought is beyond question. Looking Backward remains a fascinating read in our own time.

I should make clear that the novel is not completely a dry recitation of socioeconomic arguments and moralistic treatises. Bellamy makes the story of this most unusual of time travelers a most enjoyable one, bringing in an unusual type of old-fashioned romance to supply the beating heart of a novel that had the potential to become overly analytical and thus rather boring reading otherwise. He also managed to grab me by the scruff of the neck and shake me around a couple of times with his concluding chapter, quite shocking me with a couple of unexpected plot twists. This great humanist of the late nineteenth century can teach us all something about what it means to be truly human, although I fear that his socioeconomic theories are themselves far too romanticized to have much practical relevance in the lives of modern men and women.