E.F. Benson's books are as fresh and fun today as they were in the onset. We may not have sleepy little burgs with bridge parties being the height of the social warfare battleground, but we still have those hilarious people who can scheme and plot their way, unwitting of the itelligence of others, to what they see as the pinnacle of society. When Lucia meets her nemisis in Miss Mapp and moves into Miss Mapp's "territory" feathers fly, society scrambles, and their world rocks. I recommend this book, for if we don't see ourselves we will at least see some hilarious friends.

Well, after meeting Queen Lucia, I quite enjoyed learning all about Tilling and its dear Miss Mapp. You will wonder who she visited in Riseholm, and you will die from the anticipation of the two ladies meeting up in subsequent books (you won't be disappointed!). The characters are fantastic, the situations are comic, and I absolutely loved this book! I am officially hooked on the entire series! I hope you will try it and love it just as much as I.

Halfway through his Lucia series, Benson, probably realizing what a tedious phoney Mrs. Emmeline Lucas was turning out to be, decided to fashion a worthy adversary for her: a formidable old fadge named Miss Mapp. This required a change of venue, as well: from Olde Englysh Riseholm to the seacoast hamlet of Tilling. It's an inspired move (possibly due to Lucia's conspicuous absence; she does not lock horns with Mapp until the next book, Mapp & Lucia). Benson dissects a small sector of the British upper-middle class -- monied drones -- with such surgical skill that it's like sitting down to a strawberry high tea. From Major Benjy to Diva Plaistow and Barbara ("I think we can all squeeze into the Royce") Wyse, O.B.E, these self-infatuated twits spin out their days doddering from bridge game to garden party, from fad to diversion, all deliriously anxious about their place in the town's, and the Empire's, pecking order. This is a trival subject treated as drily and wittily as one could hope for, and written as the sun began to set on England's ambitions and literary heritage. Biographical note: Benson bought Henry James's house in Rye (the model for Tilling), and when showing it to visitors used to announce, "This is Miss Mapp's garden room. And I am Miss Mapp."

The Professor's House is a novel that I read and re-read, in the same way that one turns again and again to a good friend, for solace. Middle age is a time of change and this novel's main character is going through the Change of Life (as surely as if he were a woman...)

After reading this novel about 4 years ago, I went on to devour almost every other published work by this author. If you are Canadian, like me, I urge you to read Shadows on the Rock. This is a Cather novel set in 18th century Quebec City. A real gem.

But back to The Professor's House: Cather draws us in with the singularity of her main character. The professor is set apart from his wife and one of his daughters, disconnected from them by a lifetime of having to listen to and observe their pettiness. Connected to Tom Outland and to his youngest daughter, the professor flourishes. Aren't we all like this? There are kindred spirits and there are those who are not kindred spirits.

Because I love the landscape of New Mexico, I was thrilled with the descriptions of the ruins. Cather's love of this part of the world is reflected in much of her work. She is able to capture the emptiness and beauty of this stark landscape in her writing.

I have found some of Cather's work to be a bit ponderous. The Professor's House is one of her best novels. It has stood the test of time, which is what makes it literature. I'm also thrilled that a woman writer can be so successful at creating male characters. This is an art that many writers do not have.

I read this book in four or so hours straight. It was thefirst book I'd read by Willa Cather, but it definitely placed hersolidly in my top five greatest authors list. She's got a beautiful way with words. She's really romantic but manages to completely avert any cheesey-ness. I remember looking up after reading the last page of the novel; I felt totally displaced from my life. For that moment I was still utterly invested in the life of the family in _The Professor's House_. Read this one if you love Willa Cather, or if you've never read her before.

Somewhere I read that Cather will eventually top Hemingway as America's finest and most esteemed writer. This book floated Cather above Hemingway in my estimation and this was only the fourth book of hers that I have read. A wonderful, timeless story set in the early twenties (could very well be today!). A remarkable tale of how the appearance of a young man in the lives of one family can have such impact. Cather develops each character around their reaction to the man, Outland. Outland, a perfect name for a character that sweeps in, lives intensely, whose intellectual capabilities create wonder and who gives it all away.

The main character, the Professor, begins by tutoring Outland, even as Outland tutors the Professor's own daughters. Outland betrothes the eldest who benefits from Outland's creations with enormous riches. The youngest daughter languishes in the shadow of her older daughter's consumerism, which the mother encourages, much to the disinterest and dissatisfaction of the Professor.

The middle and last sections of this three-part book are wondrous and provide the ultimate redemption and "tutoring" for the Professor who is "saved" by the life which Outland has lived.

The setting for this book moves from the attic-office of the Professor in a small college town set on Lake Michigan to the mesas of the southwest. Each setting is beautifully described, in economical and lovely language.

This novel is a wonder! Perfect, and the best that I have read in a very, very long time.

I have this friend who hates Henry James. I can't understand it. The style is dated, in that people dont write that way today, but as you get into the book you begin to enjoy the style, as well as the plot, characters, and French/American dual culture shock that still goes on today. (For an update on the theme, look at Le Divorce and Le Mariage by Diane Johnson). I couldn't wait to see what was going to happen to these characters and the description of Paris in the Second Empire were fascinating. If you watch the Masterpiece Theatre version without having read the book, you will be totally confused. They moved events out of sequence all over the place and after about ten minutes I shut off the tape and picked up the book. You have to know the whole story before you watch them throw characters and events at you in the first two scenes that only appear 2/3 of the way through the novel, after a foundation has been laid as to who they are and when and why things happened.

I couldnt recommend this more for a good read. The only caution I have is for readers who have never been to France. They may get an extremely negative impression of French people from many of the characters in this book. Go to Paris and you will find the city is wonderful, and so are the French people. These characters are not typical!! They belong to a certain class, and the book does take place 150 years ago. If this book doesnt get you hooked on James, I dont know what will. Try Washington Square and dont miss that movie, with Jennifer Jason Leigh, Albert Finney and Maggie Smith.

OK so it takes half the book to get to the story. In typical Henry James fashion you are completely prepared for the action. Unlike Thomas Hardy, whose surroundings tell us of the character of the person it surrounds, James wishes you to know the depth of his characters as seen through the eyes of others. This of course brings on many minor characters that just seem to disappear, but it is a view of a person as if the reader was on the other side of the mirror watching the story unfold. Yes, James is wordy, yes this is not a quick read, but Henry James has a mastery of language and story telling that is rare.
"The American" is a wonderful love story that ends as a real life love story might end. Do not expect roses and happily ever after, it is as much a story of an ancient social system as it is of the life of "our hero." And the thing that seems to get missed is that Henry James actually wrote this as a mystery, not a love story.
This is a novel to contemplate and read between the lines. Good verses Evil, Noveau vs Old Money, Right and Wrong, can literature get any better than that?

This book is long, but only because that's how James tells the story. It's like a soup that needs to boil all day, so it's kept on low, but when it's done, it's perfect. The book stays at the pace of "our hero" the American Christopher Newman. A smart, educated, rich, yet easy going, simple, and humane veteran of the Civil War and a self made tycoon, who goes to Europe to see the "treasures and entertain" himself.

He becomes entangled in what he thinks is a simple plan for matrimony, but is really truly a great deal larger and more treacherous and terrible than that.

We spend a lot of time in Newman's mind, paragraphs of character analaysis are sprung upon us, but nothing seems plodding or slow, nothing feels useless. By the end of the book we find that we think like the character and can only agree with what he does. We react to seemingly big plot twists and events as he does, without reaction, and a logical, common sense train of thought.

But don't misunderstand that. For a book that is so polite and the essence of "slow-reaction", it is heartwrenching and tragic. You will cry, you will wonder, and you will ask yourself questions. Colorful, lifelike, and exuberant characters fight for your attention and your emotions, and we are intensely endeared to them. Emotional scenes speckle the book and are just enough. And the fact that something terrible and evil exists in this story hangs over your head from the beginning. It's hard to guess what happens because James doesn't give us many clues, and the ending may come as a surprise to some people. And without us knowing it, James is comparing American culture to European culture (of the day), and this in of itself is fulfilling.

Indeed, James uses every page he has, without wasting any on detailed landscapes and useless banter. 2 pages from the end you have a wrenching heartache, but the last paragraph and page is utterly and supremely satisfying, and you walk away the way Newman walks away, at peace.

I can remember my mother reading this book aloud to me as a child; one chapter a night. It didn't take long for me to decide that I couldn't wait for her to get to the next installment. I credit this book (one of many) that led to my lifelong, love affair with reading. It's among the top five books I'm collecting now to read aloud to my own daughter. She may only be 2 months old; but, it's never too early to introduce little girls to Katy and family. This book will never go out of style...life lessons are always in vogue.

What Katy Did is one of my all time favorite books! (And I have read a lot of books.) I have read all of the Katy books, What Katy Did, What Katy Did at School, and What Katy did Next, and What Katy Did is still my favorite. This is an amazing book!

The Carrs have always been my family friends, so to speak... I recently re-read this book, having loved it as a pre-teen, and I found out that it was still able to make me laugh and cry. The plot follows the growth of young Katy, focusing on her unfortunate accident and the consequences it has on her and her family.

Naturally, a part of my strongly positive reaction was nostalgia, but nevertheless this is a beautifully written story, both moving and humorous, full of imaginative magic and the cosy warmth of a loving home at the same time. The characters are lovable and memorable - is there a girl who couldn't identify herself with the clumsy, unfortunate Katy or admire the saint-like, yet fully human cousin Helen?

At the risk of sounding like a walking cliche, I must say that they just don't write books like this any longer: clean, wholesome and still totally satisfying and entertaining. But even if the whole world ran after the latest shock values, I would always be coming back to books like these - books for a girl who loves to read.

I have trained a number of dogs by the Strickland method by using this book. It is easy to follow and uses a humane method. No spike collars and other gimmiks.

I have used Strickland's method for obedience training several dogs. The methods and concepts have never failed. A must for the dog owner and trainer.

Fads, gadgets and gimmicks in training come and go. They DO sell books, classes and fancy equipment... and also confuse a lot of dogs and their owners. But this is a masterpiece of SOUND advice and a method of training that is based on a life-time of outstanding success in obedience trials. HOW can anyone argue with her degree of success? Winifred G. Strickland's methods will be around forever because they work so beautifully. She has won endless titles and done it while loving and respecting her happy, enthusiastic, super dogs. Her gentle, intelligent training program will succeed with other breeds that are not as naturally keen to work as her German Shepherd dogs.

I love this book. A classic that will probably never go out of print. What a joy to read and apply! It has an honored spot on my reference shelf and is one of the most valuable books I have ever purchased on the subject! It is easily worth ten times the price.

The reason for the four stars is that I think it is not as good as Charlotte Bronte's best, the incomparable Jane Eyre. But it is, compared with most novels of today, very good indeed. The character of Shirley is wonderful. It is clear that Caroline is the protagonist, and that she is based on Charlotte herself and is therefore given the lion's share of attention. I consider this one of the book's few faults. The character of Robert Moore is beautifully drawn and I disagree with the editors that Louis is not. Although the device of the diary is a bit clumsy, the dialogue between Louis and Shirley is enthralling. Highly recommended.

While I loved this book, there were some things I didn't like, but none that mean it doesn't deserve five stars. This is my favourite Charlotte Bronte book. i believe there is too much focus on Jane Eyre, or perhaps even Villette. There are a few coincidences in this story, especially one, which I can't mention without giving away part of the story. However these are common in CB, Villette being overun with them, and Jane Eyre ending up on the doorstep of her long lost cousins. Shirley is more believable. Another comment it the long speeches the characters often make. Apart from these though, this is one of my most loved books. It has been neglected, I feel, by the fact that the first 50 pages are very difficult to read, after that though, the story becomes apparent, and it's worth it. Something strange is that the heroine of the title doesn't appear, and is not mentioned until page 200, although she fairly dominates the rest of the book. Perhaps 'Shirley and Caroline' would have been a more appropriate title

Despite Charlotte Bronte's disclaimer that the reader will find this book "a dinner of bitter herbs" it is nonetheless a must-read classic of 19th century litterature. Many themes combine in this book; the expansion of industrialism and the dissapearance of the English countryside; the place of women in society; feminine loyalty and friendship; the conflicts of love and work, evangelism and tradition. It is perhaps the most uneven and at the same time the most interesting of the Bronte books.

While it lacks the symmetrically designed shape of Jane Eyre or the clear-eyed study of obsession of Villette, it lets the imaginative reader glimpse the Bronte sisters themselves between the lines. The characters of Shirley and Caroline are based on Emily and Anne Bronte, both of whose deaths occurred during the writing of the novel. It is a tribute to sisterly love and a fantasy that lashes back at grief. Some may find the ending a romantic cop-out, but this cannot detract from the many good qualities of this fascinating novel

the Oxford Shakespeare has been touted as 'a new conception' of Shakespeare, but is in fact merely an update of the cumbersome old Arden editions. Like these, 'King John' begins with a 100-page introduction, divided into 'Dates and Sources' (full of what even the editor admits is 'tedious' nit-picking of documentary evidence); 'The Text' (the usual patronising conjecture about misprints in the Folio edition and illiterate copyists); 'A Critical Introduction', giving a conventional, but illuminating guide to the drama, its status as a political play dealing with the thorny problem of royal succession, the contemporary legal ambiguities surrounding inheritance, the patterning of characters, the use of language (by characters as political manoeuvring, by Shakespeare to subvert them); and an account of 'King John' 'In the Theatre', its former popularity in the 18th and 19th century as a spectacular pageant, the play distorted for patriotic purposes, and its subsequent decline, presumably for the same reasons. The text itself is full of stumbling, often unhelpful endnotes - what students surely want are explanations of difficult words and figures, not a history of scholarly pedantry. The edition concludes with textual appendices.
The play itself, as with most of Shakespeare's histories, is verbose, static and often dull. Too many scenes feature characters standing in a rigid tableau debating, with infinite hair-cavilling, issues such as the legitimacy to rule, the conjunction between the monarch's person and the country he rules; the finer points of loyalty. Most of the action takes place off stage, and the two reasons we remember King John (Robin Hood and the Magna Carta) don't feature at all. This doesn't usually matter in Shakespeare, the movement and interest arising from the development of the figurative language; but too often in 'King John', this is more bound up with sterile ideas of politics and history, than actual human truths. Characterisation and motivation are minimal; the conflations of history results in a choppy narrative. There are some startling moments, such as the description of a potential blood wedding, or the account of England's populace 'strangely fantasied/Possessed with rumours, full of idle dreams/Not knowing what they fear, but full of fear'. The decline of the king himself, from self-confident warrior to hallucinating madman, anticipates 'King Lear', while the scene where John's henchman sets out to brand the eyes of the pubescent Pretender, is is full of awful tension.
P.S. Maybe I'm missing something, but could someone tell me why this page on 'King John' has three reviews of 'Timon of Athens'? Is somebody having a laugh?

Timon of Athens has often been thought the work of a madman. Disjointed, polemical, irrational, and downright inelegant, many have thought that Shakespeare (or whosoever it may be) suffered a mental breakdown. This and more surrounds what I believe to be a tragic under-appreciation of this play. This play is NOT the story of a naively generous soul who eventually "faces reality". This is instead the story of a glorious Dionysian self-expender, who, upon realizing the cowardly conservatism of his so-called "peers", runs off to the wilds, to continue expending himself in body and soul. He dies on a curse, the climax of all the "evil wind" he has been sending out, the ultimate self-expension, his ultimate glory. The "tragedy" is the stone cold tablet that lies atop his corpse at the end, and the message of frugality it seems to send out, which is all too easily accepted by fatally declining cultures.

Among the least performed of all the Shakespeare plays, is probably the most disturbing. In the beginning, Timon is (not to put too fine a point on it) stupidly philanthropic; in the end he is equally misanthropic. When Timon is on top of the world, we have the cynical Apemantus to be our voice and let him know what a fool he is. In the last two acts, we simply wish (I do, at least) that our hero would stop complaining and let us "pass and stay not here," as he would have all men do in his epitaph.

But a recording is to be judged on its performances, not so much on its text. The Arkangel series, now in its last laps toward completion before (I am told) it is all redone on CDs, has every reason to be proud of its "Timon of Athens," thanks to its strong and intelligent readings. The opening scenes of artisans and poets building up the play's themes of wheel-of-fortune and gratitude/ingratitude are almost intelligible without a text open before you. Alan Howard, whom I saw in New York long ago as Henry V and as the main character in "Good," has that kind of friendly voice that is so well suited to the extravagant Timon in the open acts that we feel all the more for him when his false friends deny him in his need.

The snarling voice of Norman Rodway's Apemantus is a perfect counterpoint, and he casts out his invective in those early scenes with a hint of humor. However, when Timon becomes the misanthrope, his voice darkens and coarsens; and it is very hard to tell it from Apemantus' in their overly-long exchange of curses in 4:3. If the actor playing Alcibiades (Damian Lewis) sounds far too young for the role, that is a minor quibble--and perhaps the director wanted him to sound like a young Timon.

The incidental music sounds sufficiently Greek but too modern; still, Ingratitude knows no particular time period. A superior production of a much flawed play and a very welcome addition to any collection of recorded drama, especially since the old Decca set is long out of print and Harper audio does not yet have a "Timon" in their series.

The temptation to finish the tale seems irresistible. In the beginning, everything seems to lead toward a predictable solution - but then the plot thickens. After some digressions that shrewdly delay the action and raise the level of suspense, and after some florid editorializing (e.g.,on professional philanthropy, on female intuition vs. male obtuseness, etc.) Dickens introduces some new characters, and the mystery deepens: Who is Datchery? Is he one of the previous players in disguise, or a Sherlock Holmes-like figure? Who is Tartar? What is Bazzard up to? What does the opium dealer know or suspect? Who is the "fellow traveller"? Did Jasper murder (or try and fail to murder) Drood - or did he commit the deed only in an opium dream?
My own hunch is that Drood is not dead. There is no body - at least not yet; and it would seem so much more like Dickens to have a man given up for dead re-emerge triumphantly after many trials and tribulations, and after much dissimulating on the part of characters "in the know" (cf."Our Mutual Friend"). But since we don't know what Dickens planned, we are free to spin our own yarn and weave our own tapestry. Isn't that a lot more fun?

This novel has stayed on my mind ever since I read it. It's so frustrating that Dickens died before completing this novel. On the other hand, the fact that this classic British mystery was never finished has created a great opportunity for literary critics and mystery lovers alike to try to solve the mystery for themselves. We'll never know who Dickens really had in mind as the murderer, or if indeed there was a murder after all. That's a huge loss. But it's a great ride for readers to try to make up their own minds.

I still haven't made up my mind about who did it. Sure, there is a very obvious suspect in Jasper, but that doesn't mean Dickens thought he did it. Some people have speculated that Dickens wrote this novel as a tribute to his friend Wilkie Collins' "The Moonstone," so perhaps the opium addiction would have played a huge part in the mystery. It's even possible that Dickens saw a bit of himself in Jasper's tortured love life because of the way it paralleled his own life. After all, Cloisterham is supposed to be based on Dickens' Rochester. Then again, just because Dickens sympathized with someone, that doesn't mean that character was innocent, either, does it? Now you see why this story continues to torment mystery lovers.

Like any other Dickens novel, this one has lots of memorable characters, from the suspicious and tormented Jasper to the Reverend Crisparkle to Princess Puffer. And of course, the enigmatic Datchery. The gravedigger and his obnoxious but perceptive boy assistant provide both Dickensian eccentric characters and possible clues.

The power of this book even today is clear in the way it inspired an award-winning Broadway musical where the audience got to solve the mystery on their own. (By the way, 1935 movie with Claude Rains was good, but some of the main characters were cut out, and others seemed little like the characters in the book, even if they were fine actors.)

Anne M. Marble
All About Romance and Holly Lisle's Forward Motion Writing Community

It is so strange to see a long, well-plotted novel suddenly come to a dead stop. (Of a projected twelve episodes, Dickens wrote six before his death.) The title character is either murdered or missing, and a large cast of characters in London and Cloisterham (Dickens's Rochester) are involved in their own way in discovering what happened to Edwin Drood.

There is first of all John Jasper, an opium addict who suspiciously loves Drood's ex-fiancee; there is a nameless old woman who dealt him the opium who is trying to nail Jasper; there is a suspicious pile of quicklime Jasper notices during a late night stroll through the cathedral precincts; there is Durdles who knows all the secrets of the Cathedral of Cloisterham's underground burial chambers; there is the "deputy," a boy in the pay of several characters who has seen all the comings and goings; there are the Anglo-Indian Landless twins, one of whom developed a suspicious loathing for Drood; there is the lovely Rosebud, unwilling target of every man's affections; and we haven't even begun talking about Canon Crisparkle, Datchery, Tartar, and a host of other characters. All we know is that the game is afoot, but we'll never know the outcome.

It would have been nice to know how Dickens tied together all these threads, but we can still enjoy THE MYSTERY OF EDWIN DROOD because -- wherever Dickens was heading with it -- it is very evidently the equal of his best works. Life is fleeting, and not all masterpieces are finished.

Jean Webster is best known for the classic Daddy Long-Legs. While it is certainly a worthy little novel, I have always preferred Dear Enemy, its lesser-known sequel. Daddy Long-Legs is vanilla, sweet and smooth. Dear Enemy is more like mint chocolate chip, refreshing with nuggets of warmth, laughter, bittersweetness. You will be enchanted by the fiery-haired Sallie McBride and her orphans.

Sallie has been asked by her college buddy, the Judy Abbott of Daddy Long-Legs, to run the John Grier Home, the orphanage Judy was raised in. A cheerful and unabashed socialite waiting for her Congressman boyfriend to propose, Sallie takes on the job on a temporary basis. Armed with her sense of humor and her firm brightness, along with her maid and her Chow doggie, she gets her heart stolen by the 100 sad-eyed charges.

The book is modeled after Daddy Long-Legs, so it is entirely composed of Sallie's stick-figure-illustrated letters to Judy, Gordon (the boyfriend), and the Home's prickly visiting doctor, whose letters are soon addressed "Dear Enemy." Her letters catalogue her daily adventures with the sweet, colorful kids, a series of cooks and farmers, sexist trustees, and grumpy neighbors. In all of this, there sparkles a strong feminine spirit, blithe optimism, and clear-headed compassion. The letters read so naturally and sure, Sallie's charm radiates whether she is amusing us with a story of orphan mischief or seriously discussing the consequences of hereditary alcoholism. The pace of the novel also clips along due to the relative shortness of the epistolary style.

As beguiling as the characters and story is, there are drawbacks that date the work (written in the 1910's) with its references to inherited behavior, social expectations, and nationalist stereotypes. A historical context is important for those. The overall voice is strong enough to carry the worthwhile messages - particularly, forging a future and identity for girls. I recommend this highly. There are books that you return to time and time again to comfort, entertain, and enlighten you - this is one of those I have treasured from my childhood. They need to bring this one back in print!

This sequel to the classic "Daddy-Long-Legs" follows Sallie McBride through a year running her friend Judy Pendleton's orphanage. Less well-known than "DLL," "Dear Enemy" is really a better book. This is not a cutesy portrayal of orphans, but an amazingly honest look at the serious, even tragic price kids can pay for their parents'-- and society's -- shortcomings.

But there's plenty of fun and humor, and a wonderful realistic-yet-romantic storyline about the importance of making a wise choice. If you want a quality story for girls, Sallie's self-confidence, independence, and intelligent optimism make her a top-notch role-model. Women readers could find a lot to love about this book, too.

Sure DLL was the one that got famous and was a lovely,captivating book as well...but somehow I seem to prefer Dear Enemy. A bit predictable like DLL but I love Sallie's style of writing...it's so natural and original. Besides the orphanage is a very interesting thing to read about...I especially like being in the lives of making up dozens of lives. A grouse though is that Judy seems to alien and far away because Sallie's letters are all there are and no replies....and she doesn't tell me enough about Judy aside some sentences here and there. I hardly know Judy Junior who isn't elaborated properly. Allegra is a dear though! ;-)

this is a comedy only in the sense that the play ends well - ie, noone dies, most everyone is happy. else, there's little humor in this comedy, save for the knave, lucio. like others here have pointed out, this is actually a pretty serious play that takes a pretty hard look at human weakness, particularly lust. there are some fine, impassioned speeches by claudio and his sister, who pleads for his life. worth a read. but don't expect any laughs.

One of Shakespeare's lesser read and lesser performed plays, Measure for Measure profoundly explores the themes of justice and mercy. This exploration compensates for the defects of the play: the unbelievable resolution, the Duke's refusal to interfere early on (which causes pain to the characters), the inconsistency in the application of morality (Isabella considers it wrong for the betrothed Claudio and Juliet to have sex but justifies--and even helps to arrange--it between Angelo and Mariana), and the unexpected suddenness of the Duke's proposal to Isabella. The play seriously weighs the concerns of justice and mercy, and although it ultimately favors mercy, it recognizes the complexity of the issue. How can one practice mercy and yet restrain vice? How can one "hate the sin" yet "love the sinner?" Mercy seems to be the necessary choice over justice because man is too fallen to bear the brunt of justice. "Judge not lest ye be judged. For with what measure you mete," said Christ, "it shall be measured unto you." If you hold a high standard for others (as does Angelo for Claudio) and yet fall short of it yourself, you will be judged by the same standard. Since we seem destined to fall short of righteousness, it is best to practice forgiveness, so that we too may be judged lightly. And yet there is a concern that such practice of forgiveness will lead to a laxity that permits vice to flourish (which is the reason the Duke leaves Angelo in charge in the first place). Though mercy and forgiveness are favored, the arguments in favor of justice are not simply dismissed.

Quote: "Condemn the fault, and not the actor of it?
Why, every fault's condemned ere it be done.
Mine were the very cipher of a function,
To fine the faults whose fine stands in record,
And let go by the actor." (II.ii.38-42)

Measure for Measure is seldom read, and not often performed in the United States. Why? Although many of Shakespeare's plays deal bluntly with sexual issues, Measure for Measure does so in an unusually ugly and disgusting way for Shakespeare. This play is probably best suited for adults, as a result.

I see Measure for Measure as closest to The Merchant of Venice in its themes. Of the two plays, I prefer Measure for Measure for its unremitting look at the arbitrariness of laws, public hypocrisy and private venality, support for virtue, and encouragement of tempering public justice with common sense and mercy.

The play opens with Duke Vincentio turning over his authority to his deputy, Angelo. But while the duke says he is leaving for Poland, he in fact remains in Vienna posing as a friar. Angelo begins meting out justice according to the letter of the law. His first act is to condemn Claudio to death for impregnating Juliet. The two are willing to marry, but Angelo is not interested in finding a solution. In despair, Claudio gets word to his sister, the beautiful Isabella, that he is to be executed and prays that she will beg for mercy. Despite knowing that Isabella is a virgin novice who is about to take her vows, Angelo cruelly offers to release Claudio of Isabella will make herself sexually available to Angelo. The Duke works his influence behind the scenes to help create justice.

Although this play is a "comedy" in Shakespearean terms, the tension throughout is much more like a tragedy. In fact, there are powerful scenes where Shakespeare draws on foolish servants of the law to make his points clear. These serve a similar role of lessening the darkness to that of the gravediggers in Hamlet.

One of the things I like best about Measure for Measure is that the resolution is kept hidden better than in most of the comedies. As a result, the heavy and rising tension is only relieved right at the end. The relief you will feel at the end of act five will be very great, if you are like me.

After you read this play, I suggest that you compare Isabella and Portia. Why did Shakespeare choose two such strong women to be placed at the center of establishing justice? Could it have anything to do with wanting to establish the rightness of the heart? If you think so, reflect that both Isabella and Portia are tough in demanding that what is right be done. After you finish thinking about those two characters, you may also enjoy comparing King Lear and Claudio. What was their fault? What was their salvation? Why? What point is Shakespeare making? Finally, think about Angelo. Is he the norm or the exception in society? What makes someone act like Angelo does here? What is a person naturally going to do in his situation?

Look for fairness in all that you say and do!