I will admit that this book is probably one of the better-written astrological texts that I have come across, but I can't help but notice that the author, while trying to avoid stereotypes and the typical astrological myths, still seems to get caught up in quite a few. I think that the two most misrepresented signs are Virgo and Scorpio, and I was pleased to know that I am not the only one who feels that way, as the author herself professed that she feels the same way. While doing a fantastic job of representing Virgos for who they actually are, instead of the neat-freak, obsessive-compulsive image that is amusingly used to represent them most of the time, I feel that the author completely missed her mark while trying to describe Scorpio, the other most misrepresented sign of the Zodiac. When are people going to stop portraying Scorpios as these enigmatic, strong-willed, yet emotional mysteries? All my life, I have been surrounded by Scorpios, and even after evaluating each of the ones that I am closest to individually, and with an open mind, I still don't see them as these 'penetrating, all-knowing, all-feeling, mysterious creatures.' This image is so ridiculous. I have no shame in writing that Scorpios are by far the absolute most selfish of the signs, even though they abhor this trait in others. Every single Scorp I know is self-pitying, and in a lot of ways, incredibly weak. Look, we'd all love to believe that there is one magical sign that seems so seething and unbearably erotic and exotic and just plain unique in comparison to the others, but honestly, is this the way that you REALLY perceive the Scorpios in your life? I used to believe this image until I gave it some serious thought, and I now accept Scorpios for being pretty basic, with human faults, not these "fantasy" faults that astrologers try to mythologize. Secondly, I wonder why the author uses Sigmund Freud as an example of how simplistic the sign of Taurus is, yet when the tables are reversed, and the author is writing about what an interesting, perplexing, mystical sign that Scorpio is, she mentions the fact that Freud has Scorpio rising. Why, just a few chapters earlier, Freud was a simpleton made legendary just because he had a few "ideas"! But now, because she is writing about Scorpio, he is considerably much more complex and cutting-edge because he has Scorpio on the ascendant? Shouldn't this point illustrate that within every sign, there is always room for ascendants and moon signs and other complex housing situations? And shouldn't it then be taken into consideration that a lot of signs are simply not as dull as one may think? I have known Librans who just aren't very bright, and Aquarians who aren't very curious, and Sagittarians who aren't very visionary (yes, vision is in the eye of the beholder, but if the author can have her own vision of what is 'visionary,' then why can't I?), and Taureans that can't do math equations to save their life (not to mention caring about money or dealing with it at all). Astrology is a science and is very accurate, but when authors begin to spin their own tales and over-generalize instead of giving simplistic, straight facts, this is when people begin to believe their own truths about signs.

And to change the subject briefly, everyone has a "shadow," as Greene points out, but what I don't understand is why she feels that shadows don't "really" represent the "actual" sun sign. To her, the Leo "shadow" has a bullying side, but God forbid that a Leo actually just genuinely be a bully. Capricorn may have a shadow that sometimes actually feels an emotion, but God forbid a Capricorn just be a mixture of varied emotions and a hundred different moods, instead of the straight-laced, money-grubbing bore that he supposedly is. Greene illustrates basic truths about every sign in beautiful detail, but it's when she begins to go off on metaphorical tangents that she begins to lose sight of what astrology actually is. I can see that Liz Greene is a very talented and gifted writer, as well as a knowledgeable astrologer/psychotherapist, but it's a shame that she had to direct these talents toward following the same creative-writing/novelized trend of every other astrology book out there. To be quite honest, the preface was actually the best part of the book.

This is not a traditional information text, you won't find delineations of planetary positions or house emphasis. It is a book of Liz Greene's personal opinions and experience of the sun signs in relation to relationships...and it is wonderful. She writes of each sign individually; their potentials, their shadows, and the way they are expressed differently in men and women. She writes with humor and compassion, giving new insights on both signs with notoriously "bad" names and those who can seem to do no wrong in the horoscope columns. Reading it was not only enlightening but thoroughly enjoyable. She respects the intelligence of her audience, and get's herself across as one might to a valued fellow earthling.

Despite its rather corny title and cover, this book is by far the best-written and clearest articulation of the archetypal nature of astrology as it intersects with the specifics of the psychology of the individual. It's influenced by Jung, not someone's half-baked *idea* of Jung, and this is also refreshing. Overall, it's the best book of its kind I've ever read--the *only* book I've ever read on "astrology", in fact, that lead me to feel I had come away with genuine psychological insights into myself, thus giving validity to a subject that is usually approached sophomorically at best.

I have owned this book since 1986 when I was just starting out on guitar. I still use this book, although it is not one that I pick up on a regular basis.

The book is all about chords and chord theory for guitarists. You don't need a huge amount of theory knowledge to get started with the material presented in this book, nor do you necessarily need to be able to read music (only one part of the book requires reading skills), however the learning curve is very steep through this book and it is definitely not a book that one works through in a 'lesson one, lesson two' fashion. Rather one would attempt to "absorb a few ideas at a time," as Mr Greene suggests.

On the matter of music reading, it is clear that the author has intended the book be useful to the widest audience possible by not requiring music reading on the most part. Although this is a positive thing is many respects, it also severely impedes upon what can successfully be presented. Also, if one were serious about learning this sort of material, not learning to read music would only impede one's progress.

The book contains a vast library of chord diagrams in the middle section of the book, depicting numerous chord types and inversions. This part is easily the weakest part of the book. This section for the most part, could be omitted or truncated, and replaced with information on how to build one's own chords and inversions, as well as providing some sort of framework for categorizing voicings and inversions i.e. drop 2 drop 2, 4 etc and perhaps how voices can be spread.

The most glaring omissions are the lack of any significant discussions on connecting predominantly rootless voicings, voice leading through progression using 2, 3 and 4 note partials (incomplete/implied chords), or a treatment of quartal harmony. These aspects of chord theory would seem to be vital to prepare a guitarist for modern playing, particularly within an ensemble context.

Having said all that, the voice leading discussion provided is quite thorough in other respects, and provides a very good seed for one's own ideas. The book provides quite useful information on Substitution/Reharmonization as well as other miscellaneous topics.

Although this book is not an absolute 'must have', Ted Greene's book provides some unique ideas and approaches to chord theory that I have never seen anywhere else. Also, some of the chord voicings he presents would probably be quite foreign to many intermediate, and some advanced guitarists. In this regard the book does provide points of departure for those who are very serious about exploring the guitar.

the other reviews describe the content very well.

my opinion: not for beginners. not worth it until you're doing significant work with the theory of the fretboard. i'd say that you can do without this book if you're willing to intensely explore the fretboard on your own, but this is a nice guide, though a lot of work. must have a strong hunger for knowing the guitar. very fulfilling, though. very helpful for jazz, but anyone wishing to apply more advanced chord theory to their music will be well-satisfied.

ted greene is very good about emphasizing the role of his books as mere guides. the book offers freedom and demands responsibility.

I bought this book back in 1971 when I was a teenager taking guitar lessons from Ted at a small studio in the San Fenando Valley. Even though I play primarily blues and rock it's still tremendously helpful to know how to put together interesting chords. Many people think this is a jazz book, but it's a theory book. All genres of music can benefit from understanding theory.

The book looks intimidating at first, but use Ted's first rule and be PATIENT, persist through the book, and you'll be the best guitarist on your block no matter what genre of music you play.

If you are curious what The Cure was doing ten years ago this day, then this book is for you. It provides pictures and articles about the band throughout the years and a complete list of the countries and specific locations The Cure has played.This book is a Cure obsessive's dream come true.There's even an article in which it discusses how old Robert Smith was when he lost his virginity and who it was with. (Grins)

A Cure worshipper (like myself)'s dream book!! Tons of fabulous pictures, listings of every concert (up until Wish, that is) and lots of fun little facts for the Cure expert to absorb. Buy this book, fellow Cureheads, you won't regret it!! I promise! :)

a very detailed documentary of a band that i'm sure are not easy to follow around. rare and colorful photos provide a very real glimpse in the lives of eccentric band mates in their daily touring schedule that covers several years. very worthwhile and well done book.

This is a great book with wonderful, thought provoking questions, but beware, there is no space in this book to write responses. Ideal if you will be writing in a separate journal or tape recording answers. I was disappointed with the layout, as I wanted the receipient to be able to write directly into the book.

This is a great little book for jumpstarting your brain. It asks thought-provoking questions that helped me journal about my life, for my children. As you read through the questions, there will be some that really spark a memory for you, and those are the ones I chose to answer. This would also be a good tool for the scrapbooker who wanted to do more than just record events with photos. I would recommend it.

I bought this book for my Father in November for a Christmas gift but gave it to him as soon as I received it. and he got busy right away on his computer and wrote a 13 page history of his life. He passed away December 29th. My gift for him turned into a gift for me, my siblings and others.I can't express my appreciation for this book!

This is Brown, the narrator of "The Comedians", describing his outlook: "I had left involvement behind me...I had dropped it... I had felt myself not merely incapable of love-many are incapable of that-but even of guilt. There were no heights and no abysses in my world-I saw myself on a great plain, walking and walking on the interminable flats." In my judgment, Brown's outlook is a big shortcoming in this book. While "The Comedians" eventually centers on one of Greene's ironically heroic characters, there's not much juice (even with an affair) since the story is told by dull Brown. Bottom line: This is a good story with some personally and politically heroic characters. But this is not Greene's best work.

The novel opens on a cruise ship steaming toward Haiti. We meet a diverse group of characters who are revealed through the device of setting them in a game of cards on board ship.
Brown, the primary character and narrator is returning to Haiti to reclaim a hotel he inherited and through his eyes we see the political changes occurring in the country and are made aware of the ominous threat of the Tonton Macoute secret police that hangs over the entire story adding dramatic tension.
Jones , his fellow passenger is revealed to be a con-man who gets by on his ability to make others laugh (one of the comedians) . Smith a failed presidential candidate from the US is naively seeking to establish a vegetarian center in Haiti seemingly oblivious to the turmoil all around him.
Brown's romance with the wife of a diplomat provides a subplot that mirrors the theme that everyone is deceiving someone. The comedians all prove to be actors playing on a stage filled with political violence and the everpresent threat of more to come.
This was a very engaging novel and if not Greene's most well known book it may be one of his best. I enjoyed it and highly recommend it for it's memorable characters and stunning evocation of a country approaching chaos.

This is one of the most powerful novels ever written. I think it was the best work of Graham Greene. In this book Greene was able to achieve a very masterful dialog, and he developed so powerful an memorable characters. We can witness how the internal struggle of the main characters intermingles with the power struggle in the country and the problems of the time. This is a very strong book that should be read and known.

As someone says on the cover of my edition, the dialogue between the Catholic priest and the Marxist mayor is really Greene talking to Greene. The wonderful Mr. Greene. Rather left leaning in his time and a converted Catholic, one might expect a little propaganda on the subject. But no, Mr. Greene has the honesty, and the intellectual insight, to describe both the strengths and the flaws of these two religions. And of course their common link: a strict, overpowering, bureaucracy. For Father Herrera and the Bishop are not unlike thousands of other aparatchiks, hungry for power and blindly following the faith.

On the other hand the Monsignor and the Mayor are a bit faithless, allowing for, in some cases thankful for, the existence of doubt. They are tolerant. And it is this tolerance that brings them together and allows their friendship to blossom. Tolerance....and a good deal of wine. In the end, of course, the bureaucrats win and both the Mayor and the Monsignor must escape.

This is one of Mr. Greene's lighter novels, lighter even than "Travels with my Aunt". The characters are relaxed, the scenes are picturesque and slow, and there is enough nice dry humor you make you laugh out loud. It's the Greene equivalent of Champagne, light, pleasant and mildly intoxicating. This compared to his other novels which are straight vodka. Highly recommend.

Listening to Monsignor Quixote, (unabridged on audio casette) I found myself instantly transported into the company of these remarkable characters. Green is a master of both dialogue and symbolism. This is the best G. Green work I have yet experienced.

If I had to choose just one Graham Greene book to take to a desert island then this would be it. Its a timeless story of a friendship that grows between seemingly quite distinct personalities and intellects and through the narration of a series of engaging conversations, travel episodes and encounters brings us to its curiously sad but uplifting conclusion.

A great book in any language.

Regards,

Martyn R Jones

I read this book about 27 years ago as a young lad after seeing him perform the Welcome to my Nightmare tour. Have been looking for it recently but understand it is out of print. It spoke of his hard drinking days, and I'd like to have another look. Come on Alice cooper fan club maybe we can get it re-published.

Bob Greene's open-eyed account of the excesses of life as a temporary member of the Alice Cooper road show in 1973-74. Not only do we see the stresses taking their toll on a band just passing their peak, but we also get a fairly nostalgic look at Nixon-era America. Not as much a "Fan" book as it is a nice study of the commercialism and marketing techniques that used to stir teen appeal and parental angst.

Want the ins/outs of the touring as a rock superstar? Look no farther!

Billion Dollar Babies has it all!

The private jet, throngs of willing groupies, money, recording studios, limos, egos out of control, envy, etc. The reader get a feel of it all thanks to a great job by the author.

The problem is the book is out of print!

However, if you ever find it in a second-hand book store be sure to pick it up.

It took a tragedy for their paths to cross, but once it did, something changed in both men. Bob Greene is an excellent writer, published author, and a syndicated columnist. He covered a tragic story about a young boy in Chicago named Cornelius Abraham. Someone in the Bulls' management read the story, contacted Mr. Greene, and sent a few tickets to an upcoming basketball game. Along with something to make the child's day even more memorable: A personal meeting before the game with Michael Jordan. But what Mr. Greene didn't know was that Michael Jordan would make the day as memorable as his legendary performances on the hardwood.

During the game, young Cornelius sat next to Mr. Jordan on the bench. When the game was over, Bob Greene went into the locker room to personally thank Michael Jordan for his kind gesture. Mr. Jordan appeared surprised that someone would actually thank him. He invited Mr. Greene, who was not a sportswriter, to attend future games. The allure was addicting, and Mr. Greene became a regular in the press area at Chicago Stadium.

This story is compelling, honest, candid, and without any pretenses. It demonstrates an unlikely, but thoroughly understandable, friendship that developed between two men from very different worlds. Bob Greene paints a picture of Michael Jordan that clearly defines the inner man, and not the icon that the public sees during 48 minutes on the basketball court. Or during countless television appearances.

Mr. Greene chronicles two years in the life of Mr. Jordan. He describes the lack of privacy that permeates his life, along with how few of us can properly appreciate or understand what Mr. Jordan does on the court. But this story has more depth than merely describing basketball feats or mega celebrity status. There are many poignant tales in this beautifully written book that will surprise the reader. Michael Jordan is a man of integrity, honor, and vast compassion. It is a shame that it took a chance meeting by a non-sports writing journalist to tell us the true story.

I came away feeling that despite all of his fame, fortune, and incredible athletic prowess, Mr. Jordan never lost sight of his roots in small town North Carolina. Nor did his fame blind him to the plights and struggles of those much less fortunate then he. Whether it was taking a pair of his shoes to a dying young man who would never walk again, inviting a crippled young woman to a celebrity dinner as his personal guest, or meeting four young men in a dangerous Chicago neighborhood after every game, he never advertised these incredibly unselfish random acts of kindness. For me, that demonstrated his true character. Very few people, knowing they have the power to do so much good, ever take the time that Mr. Jordan did to impact so many lives.

For me, one story sums up the whole book and character of the protagonist. Mr. Jordan described in vivid detail how he felt after being cut by his high school basketball coach. It wasn't the detail that impressed me, nor the depth of his feelings about the incident. He never named the coach. Obviously, those who knew the full story could determine the name of the coach. But Mr. Jordan did not humiliate the man, when for most of us, the temptation would have been overwhelming. Especially if you were the best basketball player in the world.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this book.

I am writing this review in response to "A reader from usa"'s very biased view of Michael Jordan.

The author Bob Greene writes this book in the perspective of a story teller instead of just vague praise of Jordan. You read this book you'll get the whole story of who Jordan is instead of how many points he can score.

"Michael Jordan got all kinds of special treatment while he was in the NBA...bogus calls" To that bias comment, Bob Costas of the NBA on NBC commentator said it best, "when you're a great player, you deserve the benefit of the doubt", he said that in response to Kareem Abdul Jubbar's critical free throw that won the championship when Bill Lambier made just a little bit of contact that doesn't warrant a foul call. The laker then went on to win the series & championship.

"Magic told Larry not to stand too close to Michael or they might call a foul. In front of reporters and television viewer..." That's a lighthearted moment when Bird, Magic & Jordan are taking a picture for the DreamTeam, and Magic Johnson meant for it to be a joke, and I think that you interpreted wrong. I'm sure as a great player, Bird & Magic get away with lots of foul too when Jordan response to Magic's Joke, "when are you ever foul out of a game, how can you talk?".

For all that think that Jordan don't deserve that much free throw, go get the tapes of jordan's game & play it in slow motion. You will see that he's simply unstoppable, most of the time people either get out of the way or have to bear-hugged him in order to stop him from scoring.

As for the Reggie Miller & Michael Jordan fight, because Reggie Miller started the fight, and I think there's a rule in NBA that punish the player instigated a fight with more harsh punishment.

"I am not too impressed that the bulls beat the lakers in the NBA finals... Bill Wennington stopping Kareem? Ha!" Well, like it or not, the Bulls are a great team with Jordan, when you're a winner you are a winner, it doesn't matter your opponents are injure or healthy. Even with all healthy lakers, there just isn't anyway to stop Jordan, the bulls would win anyway. You should compare the teams by overall strength & weakness. Even though the Bulls has so-so center, and the lakers have great center in Kareem, that doesn't mean the lakers can beat the Bulls. Jordan & Pippen's talent alone are far more superior than many of the lakers combined. Michael Jordan never has as much talented teammates as Magic and Bird has. Bird practically has a whole teams of hall of famers, Magic has Worthy, Jubbar, Scott,etc. In a sense, Jordan works much harder for his rings than either of these two great players.

"One of the moments picked was Mike beating the Jazz in the final minutes of his last game... obvious call", like it or not, Mike deserves to win that championship. Tell me who else could have done what he's done in that game, carrying his team throughout 48 minutes in his age, make all the right plays and makes no mistakes when the game's on the line. Before this last shot, whatever the bulls need, he gives, no matter how tired he is, he's the guy that gives his all. At the waning moment, he puts in a quick layup over several Jazz players, then he stole the ball from Karl Malone so he would have a chance to win the game by one point. And he made the shot. Whatever the Referee does, it's Referee's job, not Mike's fault.

I don't think Michael ever said Larry & Magic not good on defense. Personally, I think Magic & Larry is not as good a defensive player as Jordan is. Jordan has been defensive player of the year while leading the league in scoring too. (In the same year, he has very good steal & shot blocking stat). Larry & magic are never as quick as Jordan when he want to steals the ball. As for Shaq, he's no doubt a really dominate player with lots of skills, it's obvious he will never be as good as even Wilt Chamberlain. No other players can be as focus & mentally tough as Michael Jordan.

"Mike's corporate poster boy behavior is laughable...", we all know that superstars make commercials, as way of earning a living. Just like everybody else, that doesn't mean Mike has to be any different. Lately, he has been more selective in what commercial he does. Michael did use his influence to do charity commercial like the Anti-Drug ad & Aids awareness for Magic Johnson. Nike's labor practices are Nike's problem, people should not blame the stars that make the commercial, instead do something more usefull like pressuring Nike to change his practice.

"Players like Mike & Barkley soured me on the NBA..." That's most outrageous comment I read so far in Amazon's generally good review on books. It's player like Mike that allows people to dream, brings basketball to new height & make basketball popular globally. It's sad that we will never have someone as great an athlete ever again. Barkley is a great player that really deserve to wear a ring, he's just unlucky player that never get as great teammates magic & bird has, and he's in the same era that known as the Bulls dynasty, like many other hardworking great players, they just simply can not do anything about Mike & the bulls.

People should find something better to do than attacking Jordan for no apparent reason, when they expects Michael Jordan to be perfect yet he wants to find every little things to attack him however naive & laughable they are.

Bob Greene was not a reporter writing a story about Michael Jordan. He was Michael's friend. As a result, this book really lets the reader get to know Michael as a person. It is not just commentary on Michael. There is also a lot of actual dialog.

This is the best book written for Michael Jordan fans.

The Lattimore/Grene translations of Sophocles balance ease of reading with closeness to the original Greek text nicely. Hugh-Lloyd Jones's translation, which can be found in the Loeb edition of Sophocles's tragedies, is unquestionably superior at rendering the original Greek text, but it can come across as archaic and confusing to high school students or those unversed in Greek literature. Lattimore and Grene, unlike many modern translators, DO feel that they owe more to their readers than the loosest gist of the original text, and they deliver it.
All that said, I would advise readers to be cautious of these translations for the following reasons. First, the plays are presented in the chronological order according to the myths they portray - not in the order in which Sophocles wrote them. In other words, even though Antigone was one of the first plays Sophocles produced and Oedipus at Colonus was produced posthumously, they are presented in order of their dramatic events. This means that they are very likely translated without regard for any evolution of Sophocles's thought or any implicit commentary the poet might have made upon the works of his own youth.
Second, in his introduction, Grene states that he sees in Oedipus at Colonus Sophocles's clumsy attempt to cover over the inconsistencies of his Theban Cycle. While this is certainly not all Grene sees in Oedipus at Colonus, the judgement of anyone who takes so irreverent and shallow a view of the last work of the most technically savvy tragedian of the classic age must be called into question.
In summary: Buy this book, read it, enjoy it, but if you're going to write an important paper on Sophocles, look at his work in the Greek, or at least in the Lloyd-Jones translation of the Loeb edition.

In the movie, "Amadeus," the Austrian emperor avers that Mozart's new opera has "too many notes." The composer, on the contrary, thinks the number just right, as does even his envious rival, Salieri. The defect lay in the emperor's taste, not in the composer's art.

In Don Taylor's translation of "Antigone," published in the book, Sophocles, The Theban Plays, there are indeed too many notes, i.e., words. The defect does not lie in the art of Sophocles, nor in the requirements of translation. Taylor wrote with a contract for television performance already in hand. He fashions lines that are easy for actors to play and for audiences to understand. Having translated a character's thought, he often expands, supplements or restates the material. Thus, the audience is given a second and third bite at the apple of understanding. But this is more like a college lecturer who fears that his students won't get the point, than like Sophocles, who is famous for a clear, solid, succinct style.

Sophocles peppers his scenes, usually dialogues between two persons, with extended series of one-line "zingers," which the characters alternately thrust and counterthrust. The power and excitement of the exchanges lie in economy and pointedness of expression. To illustrate, here is a segment from the first scene between Creon and the soldier who tells him that Polynices' body has been partly buried. The first translation is by Dudley Fitts and Robert Fitzgerald, available in their book, The Oedipus Cycle, and also in Greek Plays in Modern Translation, both listed on Amazon.com. The second translation is Taylor's.

SENTRY: King, may I speak?
CREON: Your very voice distresses me.
SENTRY: Are you sure that it is my voice and not your conscience?
CREON: By God, he wants to analyse me now!
SENTRY: It is not what I say, but what has been done, that hurts you.
CREON: You talk too much.
SENTRY: Maybe, but I've done nothing.
CREON: Sold your soul for some silver: that's all you've done.
SENTRY: How dreadful it is when the right judge judges wrong.

SOLDIER: Am I allowed to speak, sir?
CREON: No!
Why should you speak? Every word you say
Is painful to me.
SOLDIER: Well, it can't be earache,
Can it sir, not what I said!
It must stick in your gullet. Or further down
Maybe, a sort of pain in your conscience.
CREON: Do you dare to answer me back: and make jokes
About my conscience?
SOLDIER: Me sir? No sir!
I might give you earache; I can see that.
I talk too much, always have done.
But the other pain, the heartburn as it were,
It's the criminal causing that sir, not me.
CREON: You're not short of a quick answer, either.
SOLDIER: Maybe not. But I didn't bury the body.
Not guilty to that sir.
CREON: But maybe guilty
Of selling your eyes for money, eh sentry,
Of looking the other way for cash?
SOLDIER: I think it's a shame sir, that an intelligent man
And as well educated as you are
Should miss the point so completely.

The Fitts/Fitzgerald translation has 9 lines and 86 words; compared to Taylor's 24 and 160. Sophocles had used 9 lines and only 69 words. All the one-liner segments, occurring in almost every scene, undergo a similar transformation at Taylor's hand. But they are not alone. The same translating style appears in the major speeches of the play. Listen to part of the condemnation of Creon by the prophet, Teiresias, from Taylor first this time, then from Fitts/Fitzgerald.

TEIRESIAS: Listen Creon. This is the truth!
Before many more days, before the sun has risen
- Well, shall we say a few more times -
You will have made your payment, corpse
For corpse, with a child of your own blood.
You have buried the one still living: the woman
Who moves and breathes, you have given to the grave:
And the dead man you have left, unwashed,
Unwept, and without the common courtesy
Of a decent covering of earth. So that both
Have been wronged, and the gods of the underworld,
To whom the body justly belongs,
Are denied it, and are insulted. Such matters
Are not for you to judge. You usurp
Ancient rights which even the gods
Themselves don't dare to question, powers
Which are not in the prerogative of kings.
Even now, implacable avengers
Are on their way, the Furies, who rise up
From Hell and swoop down from Heaven,
Fix their hooks into those who commit crimes,
And will not let go. The suffering
You inflicted upon others, will be inflicted
Upon you, you will suffer, as they did.
Have I been bribed, do you think? Am I speaking
For money now? Before very long,
Yes, it will be soon, there will be screaming
And bitter tears and hysterical crying
In this house. Men, as well as women.

TEIRESIAS: Then take this, and take it to heart!
The time is not far off when you shall pay back
Corpse for corpse, flesh of your own flesh.

You have thrust the child of this world into living night,
You have kept from the gods below the child that is theirs:
The one in a grave before her death, the other,
Dead, denied the grave. This is your crime:
And the Furies and the dark gods of Hell
Are swift with terrible punishment for you.
Do you want to buy me now, Creon? Not many days,
And your house will be full of men and women weeping.

Box score, lines and words. Taylor 29:223. Fitts/Fitzgerald 11:106. Sophocles 16:94.

Are all these words really necessary? Taylor claims that his approach helps to make the text not only more dramatic and intelligible, but also more poetic. I agree that his version is easier to grasp by first-time viewers or readers. But in the process much of the Sophoclean clarity, solidity and reality are lost.

Sophocles was a master of ancient Greek tragedy. Any criticism of these works is worse than ignorant. End of story. And yes, I'm aware that that was a sentence fragment, so there's no need to notify me of that via some nasty e-mail.

Perhaps I was spoiled by seeing the movie before I read the book. (This is one of those rare cases where the movie is better than the book). The story is entertaining enough, and well written. An interesting touch, not possible in the movie, is that the book is told from the viewpoint of Calloway - so there are things he doesn't know, things recounted third-hand, things he gets wrong. There are also a few different scenes in here - notably a kidnapping scene with Anna that was left out of the movie. Nationalities of characters changed in the movie, partly to accomodate the actors (I'm glad Joseph Cotton didn't try to do a British accent for the movie) and also to avoid "upsetting" American audiences (an unsympathetic character becomes Romanian rather than American in the movie).

There are two things missing in the book that I thought were breathtaking scenes in the movie: the bit with the cat (the discovery that Lime is not dead) and the "Borgias and the Renaissance; Swiss and cuckoo clocks" line that Welles inserted in the movie.

Perhaps I'd have liked the book better if I hadn't seen the movie first. Still, the book version is interesting, as one of the other reviewers commented, as a way of looking at a "rough draft" of a movie script.

I'd be much more of a movie watcher if all screenwriters put in as much initial effort as Greene did on this one.

When Graham Green wrote this in 1949, he had a screenplay in mind. However, even though this short novella is only 157 pages long, it certainly can stand on its own. The setting is post-war Vienna, a once-beautiful city that was now nothing but war rubble. It's administered by the four victorious nations, Russia, France, Great Britain and the United States, and they all communicate with each other in the language of their former enemy. There's a somber mood, a feeling of decay and destruction throughout. And, of course there's a mystery, and lots of suspense, as the reader is swept into a story of intrigue, betrayal and constantly changing alliances.

The form is interesting too as it's narrated by a British policeman. He has some interesting philosophical discussions with the lead character, a fellow Brit named Rollo Martins who has been summoned to Vienna by a long-time friend, Harry Limes, only to find a funeral in progress for Limes when he arrives. The mystery deepens as he sets upon doing his own form of detective work. The writing is stark, with excellent dialog and the cast of characters is somewhat confusing at first. As we learn more and more, the book picks up speed and we're hurtled into the conclusion that, while it is satisfactory, never really answers all of the questions raised. With just a few words though, it made me look at some deeper issues than the plot, such as the moral conscience of the characters as well as the particular time period in which they lived. And if there are no easy answers? Well, that's the way life is.

This is a quick and wonderful read, but don't breeze through it too speedily. As with the other Greene novels I've read, The Third Man has much going on beneath the surface, and that is no pun on the setting for the climax of the novel! The real magic in Greene is the treatment of the narrators. It's important to know the narrator, just as it is to know the historian or biographer when you're reading their work.

This is really a perfect little thing. Enjoy!