"Zarsthor's Bane" is set in the Dales and the Waste beyond the Dales. The time frame is roughly the same as "The Crystal Gryphon", but I'd rate this book a bit below "The Crystal Gryphon" if only because the hero and heroine are not as likeable. Brixia, who was once the lady of a Hall in High Hallack now hunts and scavenges the deserted, post-invasion farmland of the Dales. Her only companion is the cat Uta. Brixia and Uta are drawn into Waste where Light and Dark Magic still exist, on a search for Zarsthor's Bane. Brixia discovers a place of Green Magic while under attack by one of the many loathsome packs of creatures that inhabit the Waste. Ultimately, she rescues her companions (a wounded lord and his squire), but not before Brixia survives a vintage Norton combat between the forces of Light and Dark. The banquet scene where Zarsthor confronts his Bane is especially eery, and tingling with Norton's special brand of magical description.

Well worth reading; in fact, a 'must' for WW fans.

I have been a fan of WW from the beginning and, while I have the '83 edition of this book, this was the only place I could find the title. An interesting story of High Hallack and An-Yak and I believe this was the only illustrated WW book. It you are lucky enough to stumble across it, buy it!

The divison of opinion on this page is interesting but probably not surprising. Emma is a book for serious readers and if you go in expecting an easy-to-read page turner, then stick to Danielle Steele. (It is beyond depressing that two people who wrote reviews were somehow of the amazingly ignorant opinion that Jane Austen ripped off Alicia Silverstone's Clueless.....Rather difficult seeing as she was alive in the early 1800's .....hmmm.) Emma takes patience but it's a rewarding read, with all the complications, misunderstandings andbanality of your average soap opera yet shining with Austen's trademark subtle wit and mordant intelligence which has made this novel a classic.Books do require a little more time, effort and thinking than sitting mindlessly in front of Alicia Silverstone, but what you take away from the experience is a much wider understanding.

I've read Sense and Sensability, Pride and Prejudice, Northanger Abbey, and most recently Emma, and while all of them are wonderful, this one was, to me, the most engaging. The characters are all really well developed, especially Emma, who is portrayed as incredibly human. You always like and sympathize with her, but sometimes you want to slap her. The story is, briefly, about Emma, who lives with her father Mr. Woodhouse. She has vowed herself never to marry, but loves to play matchmaker. She has just matched her former governess, "Poor Miss Taylor," up with Mr. Weston, and is quite proud of her success. Mr. Knightly, a neighbor and the brother of her older sister's (Isabella) husband (Mr. John Knightly), warns her about meddling, but she doesn't take him seriously. Soon Emma befriends a young girl of unknown parentage (she is illegitimate and her father, while providing for her care, remains anonymous) named Harriet. Harriet is in love with a farmer named Robert Martin, but Emma thinks that he is beneath her, so manages to talk her out of accepting his marraige proposal. Instead, thinking that she would be a perfect match for Mr. Elton, another local gentleman, encourages Harriet to set her sights on him. Harriet actually talks herself into being in love with him, until everything is ruined because Mr. Elton turns out to be in love with Emma instead. She turns him down and he leaves town, soon returning with a wife, whom no one likes.

Meanwhile, Mr. Weston's son (Mr. Frank Churchill), who was sent to be raised by his aunt when his mother died, comes to visit his father and flirts constantly with Emma, who is flattered and flirts back. She begins to think she might be in love with him, but when he leaves town again to go back to his aunt and uncle, her feelings cool down. Another out of town visitor, Jane Fairfax, who is the niece of the rather irritating Mrs. and Miss Bates, has also come. Jane is destined to become a governess because she does not come from a wealthy family. Emma and Frank had been speculating about her, because Emma thought she was secretly in love with her friend's husband and that was the reason for her coming, and Frank said he agreed. Emma is jealous of Jane anyway because she is more talented and accomplished than Emma, but whenever she says anything against her to Mr. Knightly, he defends her. Mrs. Weston tells Emma that she thinks Mr. Knightly is in love with Jane, which horrifies Emma because if Knightly marries, then her nephew would no longer be the heir of his estate. Meanwhile Frank Churchill returns and Emma thinks that Harriet is now in love with him. Harriet does say that she has feelings for a certain gentleman that they both know, and that she thinks Emma knows the one she means, and asks for advice about whether she has a chance and should persue it. Emma encourages her, and meanwhile realizes that she has feelings for Mr. Knightley. Then another problem arises. I don't want to say too much more because I don't want to spoil the story if you don't know it, but the plot becomes even more complicated before everything is resolved. But it's a great book and if you are only going to read one Jane Austen novel, this is the one to pick.

i had to read this for my english sophmore highschool class and while most of my peers *hated* this book, i found this book very intriguing and esp. realistic to even today in highschool. the subjects of vanity, friendship, honesty, control, reality, self-desire, relationships, status, and maturity is all incorporated in this book and deeply and straight-forwardly depicts the life of any teenager in any century then or now. Emma struggles to understand her intentions and learns what her mistakes were all about and the reader sees her mature through experiences and constantly learning and realizing her mistakes and flaws and misconceptions. though it was a long story and had a lot of old-language narration, i have to say, Emma is part of the epitome of what ever teenager goes through, female and male. while this is mostly a chick book, guys can find themselves related to the situations that Emma deals with with the other men in the book. i highly recommend this book for people who have patience and are open to the ideals of aristocracy back then. it's amusing, witty, and shocking. really great book.

Though it's rather slow to get going in the initial chapters, Oscar Wilde's "Picture of Dorian Gray" builds up into a splendidly effective piece, written in highly polished prose. Dorian Gray, who is suggestively described as "charming" and "beautiful" ... is painted by his friend and admirer, Basil Hallward. Dorian, a self-centered social luminary whose character is reminiscent of Narcissus, makes a bizarre sub-Faustian wish which tragically comes true: that his beautiful portrait may age, while he retains his youthful looks. The conclusion is disastrous, the culmination of a narrative containing elements of murder, suicide, blackmail, a confrontation in a grimy alley and an episode in an opium den. The characters are very well sketched out, particularly the triad of Dorian, Basil and the intellectual cynic, Lord Henry, Dorian's mentor and the mouthpiece of some of Wilde's most cutting amoral opinions. The style is, typically, marvellous, characterised by brilliant exchanges and aphoristic gaiety. Wilde lacerates English bourgeois culture, the conceptions of sin and virtue and the attitudes towards art of his time with tremendous aplomb. Some of his quips are patently snide, sometimes mysogynistic, as in: "Woman represents the triumph of matter over mind, while man represents the triumph of mind over morals." Oh, isn't that just despicable?! I love it!

This sophisticated but crude novel is the story of man's eternal desire for perennial youth, of our vanity and frivolity, of the dangers of messing with the laws of life. Just like "Faust" and "The immortal" by Borges.

Dorian Gray is beautiful and irresistible. He is a socialité with a high ego and superficial thinking. When his friend Basil Hallward paints his portrait, Gray expresses his wish that he could stay forever as young and charming as the portrait. The wish comes true.

Allured by his depraved friend Henry Wotton, perhaps the best character of the book, Gray jumps into a life of utter pervertion and sin. But, every time he sins, the portrait gets older, while Gray stays young and healthy. His life turns into a maelstrom of sex, lies, murder and crime. Some day he will want to cancel the deal and be normal again. But Fate has other plans.

Wilde, a man of the world who vaguely resembles Gray, wrote this masterpiece with a great but dark sense of humor, saying every thing he has to say. It is an ironic view of vanity, of superflous desires. Gray is a man destroyed by his very beauty, to whom an unknown magical power gave the chance to contemplate in his own portrait all the vices that his looks and the world put in his hands. Love becomes carnal lust; passion becomes crime. The characters and the scenes are perfect. Wilde's wit and sarcasm come in full splendor to tell us that the world is dangerous for the soul, when its rules are not followed. But, and it's a big but, it is not a moralizing story. Wilde was not the man to do that. It is a fierce and unrepressed exposition of all the ugly side of us humans, when unchecked by nature. To be rich, beautiful and eternally young is a sure way to hell. And the writing makes it a classical novel. Come go with Wotton and Wilde to the theater, and then to an orgy. You'll wish you age peacefully.

_The Picture of Dorian Gray_, a story of morals, psychology and poetic justice, has furnished Oscar Wilde with the status of a great writer. It takes place in 19th-century England, and tells of a man in the bloom of his youth who will remain forever young.

Basil Hallward is a merely average painter until he meets Dorian Gray and becomes his friend. But Dorian, who is blessed with an angelic beauty, inspires Hallward to create his ultimate masterpiece. Awed by the perfection of this rendering, he utters the wish to be able to retain the good looks of his youth while the picture were the one to deteriorate with age. But when Dorian discovers the painting cruelly altered and realizes that his wish has been fulfilled, he ponders changing his hedonistic approach.

_Dorian Gray_'s sharp social criticism has provoked audible controversy and protest upon the book's 1890 publication, and only years later was it to rise to classic status. Reminiscent of a Greek tragedy, it is popularly interpreted as an analogy to Wilde's own tragic life. Despite this, the book is laced with the right amounts of the author's perpetual jaunty wit.

This is a tale of a boat trip up the Congo, although nowhere in the book is the actual name of that river or the Belgian colony that emerged on its banks ever used. The writer, Joseph Conrad, was probably more interesting than any of his characters. Although writing about stiff-upper-lip types and managing to be more English than the English, he was actually born in a country that was undergoing its own form of colonization in those days, that is Poland. Going to sea, Conrad experienced many adventures around the globe, providing him with the rich stock of stories that were to win him acceptance from the English reading public.

Most people now come across this book as part of some college course condemning colonialism. At least that's how I came across it. Others might know it as the prototype for Francis Ford Coppola's amazing movie "Apocalypse Now."

Although an enthralling read, it is also a strangely vacuous book and, as a consequence, extremely well-named, as Kurtz, the central character, remains a dark enigma at the heart of the story to the end. We never really get to know who he is. Sent by the Belgian colonial authorities upriver, Kurtz has 'gone native' and our narrator is sent after him to investigate.

This format allows the narrator to drop-feed us information about Kurtz during the long river voyage, giving us pieces of a jigsaw that is never completed. As we read we are nevertheless tantalized by the prospect of meeting the man who has scrawled "Exterminate all the brutes" on his report for the "International Society for the Suppression of Savage Customs," participated in "unspeakable rites," and established his authority among the natives through the uncivilized practice of impaling heads on poles.

Is this a true picture of colonialism? During his life as a sailor, the writer visited the Belgian Congo so the details ring true. Also the objective, descriptive, and rather emotionally detached style of the narrator proves convincing. Nevertheless there is something rather mechanical about this picture. Conrad presents economic exploitation or vicious greed as the dominant if not the only force in this view of colonialism. Perhaps in the case of the Belgian Congo, a particularly brutal colonial system, this is justified, but those college students being fed this novel as representative of colonialism in general should be more wary.

To our modern materialistic sensibilities, it makes perfect sense that colonialism should be so greed-driven, but there were also more altruistic motives at work such as the desire to 'save,' 'educate,' and 'civilize' the natives. Conrad treats these with a healthy dose of cynicism. The philanthropic motives, sincerely believed by many in the home country, such as Marlow's Aunt, become in the face of the ruthless greed and brutality existing in the Congo no more than empty jargon, ironically spoked to justify the terrible cruelties inflicted on the natives for the benefit of the Company. But quite often these motives were actually sincere and brought great improvements to the natives, in many cases actually giving them the tools with which they later won their independence.

Although condemning their exploiters, Conrad has little real understanding of the natives who always remain mysterious and unfathomable:

"The prehistoric man was cursing us, praying to us, welcoming us - who could tell? We glided past like phantoms, wondering and secretly appalled, as sane men would be before an enthusiastic outbreak in a madhouse."

In this there is a lack of true sympathy, which however reassures us that he is not exaggerating or sentimentalizing the plight of the Africans. Colonialism was certainly not a blessing; maybe it wasn't a mixed blessing, but it might have been a mixed curse. Anyway, however you choose to view it, it undoubtedly had a profound impact on the economy, environment, culture, and identity of native peoples. We get little of this from Conrad and his "unfathomable savages."

I'm not sure how to feel about this book. While reading it, I really could not become absorbed by Conrad's dense prose, though, while occasionaly eloquent, is very thick, and, well, British. But now that I am finished with it, I can not get the images the novella invokes out of my head. The conquest of Africa by the Imperialist on the surface, and the corruption of man's very morality underneath. The story is deceptively simple, merely a man working for an Ivory trading company, ominously called "The Company", going up the Congo river to meet up with Kurtz, the archetype of Western Imperialism. During this trip, we are shown the inner workings of man and his heart of darkness. The novella is not perfect though. Conrad's condemnation of Imperialism is uneven. Yes, the only discernable cause of Kurtz's descent into evil and madness is the imperialist ethic of master-slave, and it is fairly clear that Marlowe (conrad) is condemning that ethic, but at the same time, he doesn't work very hard to elevate the view of the African natives any higher in the esteem of his western readers. Anyway, as the novella is only about 100 pages, it is something that can be read in a day. Invest an afternoon in it, and decide for yourself.

Heart of Darkness is a novella that really needs to be read more than just once to fully appreciate Conrad's style of writing. The story is an account of one man's simultaneous journey into the darkness of a river as well as into the shadows of a madman's mind. There is a very brilliant flow of foreshadowing that Conrad brings to his writing that provides the reader with accounts of the time period and the horrible events to come. Through Conrad's illuminating writing style we slowly see how the narrator begins to understand the madness or darkness that surrounds him.

I recommend this particular version of the novella because it contains a variety of essays, which discusses some of the main issues in the reading and historical information. Issues like racism and colonialism are discussed throughout many essays. It also contains essays on the movie inspired by the book Apocalypse Now, which is set against the background of the Vietnam War. I recommend reading Heart of Darkness and then viewing Apocalypse Now, especially in DVD format which contains an interesting directors commentary.

Considered by many to be the great American novel, Mark Twain's "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" is the story of a boy, Huck Finn, and a runaway slave, Jim, as they travel down the Mississippi River on a raft. "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" is the sequel to Twain's novel "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer". Where "Tom Sawyer" was more a care-free children's book, "Huck Finn" is a far darker less childlike book.

Judging from my rating you can see that I do not agree that this is in fact the great American novel. Twain seemed far too unsure of what he wanted to accomplish with this book. The pat answer is to expose the continuing racism of American society post-Civil War. By making Jim simultaneously the embodiment of white racist attitudes about blacks and a man of great heart, loyalty, and bravery, Twain presented him as being all too much of what white America at the time was unwilling to acknowledge the black man as: human.

However noble the cause though, Twain's story is disjointed, at times ridiculous, and, worst of all (for Twain anyway), unfunny. The situations that Huck and Jim find themselves in are implausible at best. Twain may not have concerned himself too much with the possibleness of his story; but, it does detract from your enjoyment of a story when you constantly disbelieve the possibility of something happening.

"The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" is an important book in that it did affect much of the American literature that followed it. However, this is another novel which is more important to read for its historical significance than for its story.

I read this, since it was my school's outside reading assignment. The printing was so small, that I first thought it would be a boring read. But I soon figured that I was wrong. I found myself slowly slipping into the story as if it was all happening before my own eyes. The characters were very interesting. Especially Huck Finn seemed like a very likable person with a strong identity, wit, and a soft heart. He does not want to sit and let the world rule over him, but instead test his own ideas and proves to the world that he can be better than what the society expacts him to be. And although many say it is a racially biased book because of its frequent use of N word, nobody can deny that it was a commonly used word in the 1800 where the rogue institution called 'slavery' was considered healthy and inevitable. As a matter of fact, this is a book that actually tries to tell the world about the evilness of racial prejudice not promote it. One should read between the lines, in order to acknowledge Twain's subtle attempts. It was a thrilling experience and I recommend people to have for their own!!!!

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain, was one of the best novels I have ever read. When I was a junior in high school, I had to get signed permission to read this novel. I never thought a book could be so controversial that something like that would be necessary. I am so glad that I read it then, and again during my freshman year of college, because I think it sends a powerful message. Written in the dialect of the deep south, Twain successfully gets the reader involved in the book. When I read this novel for the first time, I did not want to put it down. The character of Huck intrigued me. Though a young boy, he had more common sense than many people years older than him. He knew what he wanted and was smart enough to know how to go about getting it. When he befriends a runaway slave named Jim, social issues are brought up and Huck is forced to follow what his heart says, instead of what society says is morally acceptable. I enjoyed how Twain portrayed Huck and Jim's journey down the river and the adventures they shared. It was a symbol of their need for freedom. By sharing the same goals, Huck and Jim become true friends. They are beyond the color barrier and realize that a person is a person, regardless of what they look like or who they are. I think much of today's society could benefit from reading this book. It helps you put things in perspective and think about what is really important in life; what others think versus how you feel. If anyone is looking for a good novel to read, one that captures interest and provokes thought, Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is it.

I first read Moby Dick; or The Whale over thirty years ago and I didn't understand it. I thought I was reading a sea adventure, like Westward Ho! or Poe's Arthur Gordon Pym. In fact, it did start out like an adventure story but after twenty chapters or so, things began to get strange. I knew I was in deep water. It was rough, it seemed disjointed, there were lengthy passages that seemed like interruptions to the story, the language was odd and difficult, and often it was just downright bizarre. I plodded through it, some of it I liked, but I believe I was glad when it ended. I knew I was missing something and I understood that it was in me! It wasn't the book; it was manifestly a great book, but I hadn't the knowledge of literature or experience to understand it.

I read it again a few years later. I don't remember what I thought of it. The third time I read it, it was hilarious; parts of it made me laugh out loud! I was amazed at all the puns Melville used, and the crazy characters, and quirky dialog. The fourth or fifth reading, it was finally that adventure story I wanted in the first place. I've read Moby Dick more times than I've counted, more often than any other book. At some point I began to get the symbolism. Somewhere along the line I could see the structure. It's been funny, awesome, exciting, weird, religious, overwhelming and inspiring. It's made my hair stand on end...

Now, when I get near the end I slow down. I go back and reread the chapters about killing the whale, and cutting him up, and boiling him down. Or about the right whale's head versus the sperm whale's. I want to get to The Chase but I want to put it off. I draw Queequeg with his tattoos in the oval of a dollar bill. I take a flask with Starbuck and a Decanter with Flask. Listen to The Symphony and smell The Try-Works. Stubb's Supper on The Cabin Table is a noble dish, but what is a Gam? Heads or Tails, it's a Leg and Arm. I get my Bible and read about Rachel and Jonah. Ahab would Delight in that; he's a wonderful old man. For a Doubloon he'd play King Lear! What if Shakespeare wrote The Tragedy of The Whale? Would Fedallah blind Ishmael with a harpoon, or would The Pequod weave flowers in The Virgin's hair?

Now I know. To say you understand Moby Dick is a lie. It is not a plain thing, but one of the knottiest of all. No one understands it. The best you can hope to do is come to terms with it. Grapple with it. Read it and read it and study the literature around it. Melville didn't understand it. He set out to write another didactic adventure/travelogue with some satire thrown in. He needed another success like Typee or Omoo. He needed some money. He wrote for five or six months and had it nearly finished. And then things began to get strange. A fire deep inside fret his mind like some cosmic boil and came to a head bursting words on the page like splashes of burning metal. He worked with the point of red-hot harpoon and spent a year forging his curious adventure into a bloody ride to hell and back. "...what in the world is equal to it?"

Moby Dick is a masterpiece of literature, the great American novel. Nothing else Melville wrote is even in the water with it, but Steinbeck can't touch it, and no giant's shoulders would let Faulkner wade near it. Melville, The pale Usher, warned the timid: "...don't you read it, ...it is by no means the sort of book for you. ...It is... of the horrible texture of a fabric that should be woven of ships' cables and hausers. A Polar wind blows through it, & birds of prey hover over it. Warn all gentle fastidious people from so much as peeping into the book..." But I say if you've never read it, read it now. If you've read it before, read it again. Think Dostoevsky, Shakespeare, Goethe, and The Bible. If you understand it, think again.

It's always dangerous to label a book as a "masterpiece": that word seems to scare away most readers and distances everyone from the substance of the book itself. Still, I'm going to say that this is the Greatest American Novel because I really think that it is--after having read it myself.

Honestly, Moby Dick IS long and looping, shooting off in random digressions as Ishmael waxes philosophical or explains a whale's anatomy or gives the ingredients for Nantucket clam chowder--and that's exactly what I love about it. This is not a neat novel: Melville refused to conform to anyone else's conventions. There is so much in Moby Dick that you can enjoy it on so many completely different levels: you can read it as a Biblical-Shakespearean-level epic tragedy, as a canonical part of 19th Century philosophy, as a gothic whaling adventure story, or almost anything else. Look at all the lowbrow humor. And I'm sorry, but Ishmael is simply one of the most likable and engaging narrators of all time.

A lot of academics love Moby Dick because academics tend to have good taste in literature. But the book itself takes you about as far from academia as any book written--as Ishmael himself says, "A whale-ship was my Yale College and my Harvard." Take that advice and forget what others say about it, and just experience Moby Dick for yourself.

Most readers of Moby Dick seem to praise it for the wrong reasons and some miss the boat completely.

Criticize all you want of Melville's scientific inaccuracy, wandering themes, or even his improper punctuation. The guy wrote this thing in a year - not enough time to refine it, and it was a book he knew would not sell.

Underneath a mess of useless whaling information and Ishmael's rambling are ideas and questions that most people don't dare think about. Unlike Charles Darwin, Galileo or the fearless Ahab, Melville hid safely behind his metaphors and guided the careful readers to draw their own conclusions without completely leading the way.

Let me explain.

While to Ishmael, Moby Dick is nature's wonder and to Starbuck is just a whale, to Ahab Moby Dick is God, with his infinite power.

There are some disturbing things in the universe begging for an explaination, such as why one person is rewarded with happyness while another punished in suffering. There are feel-good answers, like the idea that the score will be evened in the afterlife and there are humble answers, like the book of Job, which suggests that man has no right to complain or question God. Melville's Ahab takes this to another level when he asks why man needs to be God's puppets. Ahab is insulted by God's creation of man, letting man live in suffering, "with half a heart and half a lung".

The bewildered God-fearing masses will not comprehend the depth Melville trys to take them. This most important theme was written for the pursuit of truth, not happyness. This book is not for everyone, and a lot of chapters are better off skipped, but those with enough empathy for Melville will find an emotional and intellectual adventure.

Like all devoted lovers of Jane Austen, I have long pondered why she chose to write this, of all books, at time she was experiencing the intoxicating success of Pride and Prejudice.

The protagonist is a loathesome little priss. Austen herself says so in her letters. Fanny Price is neurotic and oversensitive where Austen's other heroines are brash and healthy. Even Austen's own family found the ending as odd and disappointing as do subsequent generations of readers.

So there's a puzzle to be solved here. The answer may lie in the fact that this book was written when, after a lifetime of obscurity, Austen found herself, briefly, a huge success. As is so often the case with writers, the success of her earlier book may have given her the courage to decided write about something that REALLY mattered to her--and what that was was her own very complex feelings about the intensely sexual appeal of a morally unworthy person.

This topic, the charm of the scoundrel, is one that flirts through all her other books, usually in a side plot. However, the constraints of Austen's day made it impossible for her to write the story of a woman who falls for a scoundrel with a sympathetic viewpoint character.

So what I think Austen may have decided to do was to write this story using Edmund--a male--as the sympathetic character who experiences the devastating sexual love of someone unworthy. Then, through a strange slight of hand, she gives us a decoy protagonist--Fanny Price, who if she is anything, is really the judgemental, punishing Joy Defeating inner voice--the inner voice that probably kept Jane from indulging her own very obvious interest in scoundrels in real life!

In defense of this theory, consider these points:

1. Jane herself loved family theatricals. Fanny's horror of them and of the flirting that took place is the sort of thing she made fun of in others. Jane also loved her cousin, Eliza, a married woman of the scoundrelly type, who flirted outrageously with Jane's brother Henry when Jane was young--very much like Mary Crawford. The fact is, and this bleeds through the book continuously, Austen doesn't at all like Fanny Price!

To make it more complex, Fanny's relationship with Henry Crawford is an echo of the Edmund-Mary theme, but Austen makes Henry so appealing that few readers have forgiven Austen for not letting Fanny liven up a little and marry him! No. Austen is trying to make a case for resisting temptation, but in this book she most egregiously fails.

2. Austen is famous for never showing us a scene or dialogue which she hadn't personally observed in real life, hence the off-stage proposals in her other books.

Does this not make it all the more curious that the final scene between Edmund and Mary Crawford in which he suffers his final disillusionment and realizes the depths of her moral decay comes to us with some very convincing dialogue? Is it possible that Jane lived out just such a scene herself? That she too was forced by her inner knowlege of what was right to turn away from a sexually appealing scoundrel of her own?

3. Fanny gets Edmund in the end, but it is a joyless ending for most readers because it is so clear that he is in love with Mary. Can it be that Austen here was suggesting the grim fate that awaits those who do turn away from temptations--a lifetime of listening to that dull, upstanding, morally correct but oh so joyless voice of reason?

We'll never know. Cassandra Austen burnt several years' worth of her sister's letters--letters written in the years before she prematurely donned her spinster's cap and gave up all thoughts of finding love herself. Her secrets whatever they were, were kept within the family.

But one has to wonder about what was really going on inside the curious teenaged girl who loved Samual Richardson's rape saga and wrote the sexually explicit oddity that comes to us as Lady Susan. Perhaps in Mansfield Park we get a dim echo of the trauma that turned the joyous outrageous rebel who penned Pride and Prejudice in her late teens into the staid, sad woman when she was dying wrote Persuasion--a novel about a recaptured young love.

So with that in mind, why not go and have another look at Mansfield Park!

Mansfield Park is the work of a mature Austen. Compared to her earlier book, Pride and Prejudice, it features a particularly complex plot structure (complex for Austen, anyway) that works especially well in the first volume, and somewhat less well in the second. The book also features Austen's characteristic nicety of interior character description, her really superior ability to follow the subtle nuances of thought and feeling. This ability is raised to a whole new level, however, in Mansfield Park since the heroine, Fanny Price, is a particularly sensitive, selfless, and considerate girl. Austen is up to the challenge, though, and develops stylistic techniques uniquely and perfectly suited to evoking all of Fanny's moral and emotional struggles. It is simply a joy to follow Fanny through all her travails.

The weakness of the book is the structure of the third and last volume. Here, Austen falls back a little to much on the technique of letter writing to move her story forward. This weakness IS offset somewhat by the wonderful scenes in Fanny's hometown of Portsmouth - scenes that evoke one of Dickens' favorite themes, the impoverished family - but overall, the structure here is not up to the standards of the first two volumes.

Another weakness, though this is more a comment on Austen's style than on this book in particular, is the paucity of vivid imagery, of truly original metaphors or similes. Compared to Dickens or Flaubert, two of her near contemporaries, Austen is decidedly inferior on this score. Her strength really lies in her ability to describe the subtleties of the emotional and intellectual lives of her characters with a fidelity and clarity that I think is superior to Dickens and the equal of Flaubert.

Finally, a comment on Fanny's 'likeability'. While I don't want to deny that a character's likeability can influence our enjoyment of a book, I also think that it should not be a consideration in our judgement of the book's merit as a work of art. Madame Bovary, the book by Flaubert, is populated by unlikeable people and there isn't any one we can 'identify' with (or so we hope), yet that book is certainly a great work of art. In the same way, our gut reaction to Fanny may not be favorable, but this should have nothing to do with our assessment of Fanny as a character or the book as a work of art. The only consideration should be, 'did Austen succeed in creating the kind of character she set out to create?'; NOT, 'did I like Fanny Price as a person?', or, 'would I like to have Fanny Price as a friend?'.

Anyway, a good book, flawed only by the somewhat weak final volume. Certainly one of Austen's best.

I am a new reader of Jane Austen and after reading the other reviews of this book, I was a little scared to read this one so I saved it for last. I was so surprised how much I liked it. Fanny, the main character, is someone I could relate to in ways that many other readers apparently have not been able to. Unless you grow up in a home where you are made to feel unwanted, and have a Mrs. Norris as an aunt in Fanny's case or a stepmom in my case, it would be hard to understand Fanny. Take it from me,the character is very real in many ways and not the wimp or doormat that many other reviewers find her. Alot of people said this book of Jane Austen's is her deepest because of the social issues she tackles. I will have to read it again to pick up on more of that, I was so busy focusing on Fanny's situation and understanding her feelings, knowing how her situation affected her responses, that I missed things. I look forward to reading it again. I think others will enjoy it too,don't be put off by the other reviewers. Of course, I look forward to rereading all my Jane Austens.

There is not a book out there that is more frustrating than James Joyce's Ulysses...unless, of course, it is Joyce's Finnegan's Wake. The problem lies in the fact that this novel is such an amazing piece of art that the reader can feel like Joyce forgot all about him. It is almost impossible to read by oneself with it's seemingly garbled maze of words and phrases and madness. However, this is what makes it such a joy to read. Imagine that an author decided to do away with any and all rules concerning fiction and to write a book that was it's own entity, showing you what it wanted to show you, telling you what it wanted to tell you and acting like its own character. This is what Joyce has accomplished with Ulysses. I was fortunate enough to read this book in a class, four months of nothing but Ulysses, and I have to warn would be readers that I don't think I would have made it through without expert guidance. I would advise anyone wishing to tackle this literary giant to gather some book loving friends, and a guidebook or two for Ulysses, and to take it very slowly. Read a chapter a week and then meet up with you group to discuss and puzzle out what you have just read. I am willing to bet that your weekly conversations will be a greater work of art than any book out there, and I think that Joyce would have liked that, would have enjoyed sparking debates and conversation, its probably the main reason why anyone creates anything; for it to be enjoyed and shared. The story line is simple, you have two main characters, Stephen Dedalus, the brilliant but alienated loner. You have Leopold Bloom, a simple man who is as alienated as Stephen, but not for his mind, for his cultural background and meek manner. The entire book takes place over the course of one day in Dublin, and after the first three chapters the entire book simply follows Bloom around during a day when he knows that his wife is having a romantic meeting with her lover. It is hard to sum up such a giant book in a few sentences like this, but basically Bloom is trying to set his life back on track, trying to reconcile himself with his wife's betrayal, and trying to reach out to Stephen who he feels could use a loving family. Of course, you could read this book and not find any of what I am saying in there, but the beauty of Ulysses is that I would love to hear what it is that you found in this novel as much as I would love sharing what I found.

Ulysses is great fun. It takes a bit more work to read than most books, just as it takes a bit more work to play tennis than it does to play catch. You shouldn't feel compelled to put the work in, any more than you should feel compelled to learn an unusually difficult sport. But people who do put the work in and who have a good time doing it shouldn't be made to feel guilty about it either. It's a pleasure to follow the interweaving lines of the Sirens chapter, for instance, and anyone who does it will see that the chapter is alive in a way that almost nothing else is in literature. Joyce is a terrific comic writer and a terrific creator of vivid, complicated characters. But he requires the reader to put in some extra effort to enjoy how good he is, and I can't blame anyone who gives up after a few pages and refuses to go any further. On the other hand, I've noticed that people who don't like Joyce's approach seem to want to attack people who do. This is silly. Again, it's like hating people for playing basketball just because you prefer skateboarding. Both the Joyce lovers and the Joyce haters should lighten up a bit.

Why do people who don't like Ulysses always lambaste those who do? You have every right to like and dislike what you please, and so do I. Why the name calling? I wouldn't call myself an intellectual and I'm certainly no "literary luminary," but I love the book. For me, it's not about mythic parallels or stylistic experimentation or esoteric theories of art-it's about the richness, the absolute miracle, of human experience. Whatever else you can say about Joyce's intent, he wanted to show us life. And every time, for example, Bloom wonders whether black reflects or refracts light, I see life-the sort of life (banal, uncertain, driven by the demands of the flesh, often a joy, sometimes thankfully relieved by humor) that I live. Joyce (I think) succeeded in giving us a very simple but profound truth: every moment of life is sacred. Eternity, heaven and hell, God, the whole shebang, are right here around and within us all the time. And we spend 99% of our time distracting ourselves in one way or other.

Bring your sense of humor! (it's supposed to be a comedy), and a little patience. The more you read it, the more you get out of it.

A Portrait of the Artist As a Young Man is not an easy read by any means, but it is a worthwhile read by all means. The plot focuses on the growth and development of Stephen Dedalus, an intelligent Irish boy born into a poor family. One of the most interesting features of the book is that it is considered to be a "self-portrait of the artist" by most experts. The events of author James Joyce's life mirror those of young Dedalus well. This makes for a fascinating read considering Joyce's prominent position in the writing world.
The writing styles and techniques Joyce uses are expert. The writing level begins at a level that a small child would use, and increases in sophistication through the book as Dedalus grows older and becomes more educated. The pinnacle of the writing is Dedalus' narration about his theories of art and beauty near the end of the book, about the time he is to leave the university and Ireland altogether. The beautiful language of the narration is a work art by its own merit, and I highly recommend reading it whether or not you read The Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man in its entirety.
Among the various things to look for while reading "Portrait" are the reoccurring images of water, birds, and the colors white and red. Specifically, pay attention to Dedalus' perceptions of these things, and how his perceptions change as the book moves forward. Two other common topics surfacing throughout the novel are politics and religion. Ever since a bitter argument about politics and religion broke out among his family at Christmas dinner, Dedalus has been wary of the subjects. This makes for conflict because the church and politics are at the forefront of the educated minds he is associating with.
Lastly, when reading this book, consider how it relates Irish nationalism and Ireland's struggle to find its place in the world of art and culture. Although this is not such an obvious theme, it is interesting to note how many of the characters are concerned with what Ireland is, where it is going, and how best to improve it.
Because the reading can be so heavy in The Portrait of the Artist As a Young Man, I recommend referring to some sort of an explanatory or summary essay to supplement your reading...

A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, by James Joyce is the story of a young man struggling to grow up and rise above the political, religious, and patriotic cords that bind him down. The book begins with Stephen reflecting on his childhood until he grows up to be a man with his own views. The story takes place in Ireland when there was much confusion in religion and politics. Stephen Dedalus was raised in a very patriotic home, which was also devoutly Catholic. Stephen, however, struggles with the strong views of his family and church. He doesn't quite know if he agrees with everyone around him. Throughout his life Stephen and his family have to move to different houses because of financial problems. This also causes Stephen to have to change schools, and become involved with different types of people. While he is changing schools externally, internally he is also changing; he is becoming a young man with ideas uniquely his own. Growing up is a great challenge for Stephen, he is thrown into many different situations and has people all around him trying to tell him what to think, and what to do with his life. He goes from having his first unexpected sexual relationship to feeling the awful guilt of his sins. Then he goes from wanting to become a priest to realizing that all he wants to do is get out of Ireland, and become his own expressive, unique self through art. He is not close minded to what people tell him, but he doesn't agree with what they tell him and he doesn't feel that it is for him. There is great symbolism and imagery in this book. There is a current theme of water and of birds. It is as if Stephan admires the birds, but they are also those in which "pull out his eyes ". They pull out his eyes because he wants so badly to be a bird and fly away, but can't because too many things are preventing him from flying away. Stephen wants to rise above the water and the filth of his life, this water and filth can be considered the church and political issues that occupy his and his family's lives. He wants to become like Dedalus and build himself wings to fly away; in the end of the book he does fly away, and a new life awaits him.

The strikingly beautiful language of James Joyce provides readers with page after page of scrumptious poetic prose describing more of thoughts and reactions to implied situations within the novel. Portrait of an Artist is not so much the story of young Stephen Daedalus as it is an expression of the feelings of a young man facing an internal struggle between religion and aesthetics. As the prose of the novel grow along with its young protagonist readers are able to see the progression of a small child into a strong young man. Joyce instead of telling readers the story provides them with the sensations and feelings of Stephen as he grows allowing the story to be merely implied and absorbed by the reader. Although many parts of the novel may be difficult to understand, as readers are not always sure exactly what is happening because of Joyce's style, the beauty of the prose itself is a major part of what makes Portrait of an Artist such a fantastic piece of literature.
The struggle of young Stephen between his creative side and the rough political and religious expectations of his family and nation can also be seen by Joyce's choice in the name of his character. The relation of Stephen Daedalus to the mythical Daedalus who created wings to escape the Leviathan is weaved throughout the novel through Joyce's use of bird imagery. The reader can see the progression of the young hero as he strives to create his own wings to escape the oppression he comes to feel from religion and even patriotic devotion. One of the most beautiful passages of the entire book is the epiphanatic moment when Stephen sits on the beach and notices a beautiful young woman standing in the surf. Joyce describes this exquisite young girl by using language one might use when describing a beautiful bird. She represents the beauty and creativity Stephen has felt guilty for desiring all his life because of the strong influence his religion has had on him. Stephen's realization at seeing this girl is one of the major steps in his attempt to create his own wings and fly away.
This masterpiece of James Joyce's, although fictional, draws heavily on experiences from the author's life. It touches on many meaningful themes all mainly related to coming of age as Joyce takes readers through many of his own youth experiences. The real genius of the novel is a technique called stream-of-consciousness that Joyce was one of the pioneering developers of during his time. From the baby talk and infantile perception Joyce presents at the beginning of his novel to the elevated and intellectual ideals Stephen presents during his time at the university, this style of writing enhances the experience for the reader as they are literally inside the main character's thoughts although the narration is not in the first person. This adds to the experience, as the reader is able to struggle along with Stephen as he attempts to rise above the imposition of family, peers, religion and politics. The journey throughout the novel is a story of a young man who comes of age and eventually finds his directions in life as he strive to become an artist in a world dominated by rigid things.

This classic of the english literature, written by Kate Chopin, is a revolutionary novel for the time she had to live. It was bad seen and was forbiden for more than 50 years. The idea that a woman, a married woman, would laeve her husband and her children, to live with another man,wasnt allowed in her society. Im not saying that nowdays such a thing is allowed, but in those earlies days, this thing wasnt even thought, thats why this book can not have a happy end for Edna, because in no way her dream would have been come true. Personally Y think Robert loved Edna vey much, but he knew, he never could have been with the woman he loved. Her friend Madmoisselle Reisz, told her she needed to be strong to face her feelings and let Robert by side, because he finally would destroy her life. At the end that was what finally happened, Ednas complete life turned around Robert until that point, in the absence of her husband, she left home with the only purpuse of beeing alone until Roberts return. Y think that she was so in love, that she was forced to sink in the sea. Personally I found it an excellent book and it could bea very good advice for further generations.

Can you imagine the impact this book must have had when it was first published in 1899? So scandalous! And it still has the power to make its readers eyes grow wide.

My only complaints are that the ending was unrealistic. (Of course, it fit the BOOK completely---it just wasn't practical.) I also think the portrayal of Edna as a nonchalant mother (as opposed to a nurturing mother) was unfair. Chopin wanted readers to view Edna as a victim, and when Edna turned around and neglected her own children...that didn't help our sympathy for her. ...Yet surely we readers realized this was a woman who was too oppressed and stifled to know what to do with herself.

Anyway, before I forget, a word of caution: HAVE A DICTIONARY NEARBY!! WHOA! Chopin was obviously VERY intelligent, along with being ahead of her time. Vocab. word after vocab. word, I tell ya.

Overall, the reader feels pity for practically every character. But it's not such a melancholy atmosphere that would make one want to stop reading it; it's merely proof that Chopin can weave a web of believable characters struggling with believable circumstances.

I would voice one more disappointment, though, if it wouldn't serve as a spoiler. ...Um, I think I was hoping that Edna would betray her husband a little more than she did...succumb to temptation a bit more...because I was rooting for her! I was sympathizing with her, and I thought she should get what she has longed for. But no such luck. Her conscience probably prevented something from going too far. Rats.

This is a sophisticated read laced with French phrases and lengthy paragraphs, but worth your while.

Though at one time I, too, would have rated "The Awakening" one of the worst reads of a lifetime--for its predictability in the context of a woman oppressed by Victorian society, and the most undeveloped, unsympathetic heroine for whom I was unable to muster the slightest emotional investment--a nagging, relentless undercurrent of something I couldn't quite identify festered long inside me regarding this novel until the story, and author, were at last redeemed upon my third reading, in a literature course that finally ended this internal struggle.

Having much faith in Kate Chopin as a writer, I never felt 'the awakening' was about sex. This was too easy, even for a book set in Victorian Society. Further, it occurred to me that although women were limited beyond the domestic sphere in this era, suicide was not particular to the phenomenology of Victorian women (as it was, say, to Wall Street brokers at the onset of the Great Depression).

"The Awakening," in title and content, is irony. Edna Pontellier's awakening is about who she perceives herself to be, and who she actually is. She dreams of passion and romance and embarks on a summer affair, yet she married Leonce simply to spite her parents, who don't like him. She moves out of the family home to live on her own--with the permission, and resources, of Leonce--hardly independent. She claims to crave intimacy, yet she fails horribly at every intimate relationship in her life: she is detached with her children, indifferent to her husband, leery of her artist friend, and can hardly stand another minute at the bedside of her warm, maternal friend, Mrs. Ratignolle, to assist her in childbirth. (Ratignolle was my favorite character of all, read after read, simply because she was so content with herself.)

The Awakening? The surprise is on Edna, who is not the person she imagines herself to be. The irony? Edna Pontellier is never awakened to this, even at the bitter end. Feminists have adopted this book as their siren song...embarrassing at least! A feminist reading would, predictably, indict Victorian society as oppressive to women. Yawn...So that's new?!! Tell us something we don't know! I can tell you that concept wouldn't be enough to keep a book around for a hundred years.

But the concept that has sustained this novel over a century's time is its irony. And it is superbly subtle. I believe Chopin deliberately set up Victorian society as her backdrop to cleverly mask this irony...'the awakening' is not something good (a daring sexual awakening in a dark era for women): it is something horrible that evolves and is apparent to everyone except the person experiencing it. This reading makes Edna's character worth hating! Chopin herself hated Edna Pontellier and called her a liar through her imagined conversation with her artist friend at the end of the novel.

Chopin also cleverly tips the scales in Edna's favor in the first half of the novel, but a careful read reveals those scales weighed against her in the second half. I give the novel 5 stars because it took me three readings and help from a PhD lit professor to figure out this book. And I'm proud to say that I am, at last, awakened.