This is a cute little book. It can probably be read over a weekend. The main character in the story, Helen, has a brother who is a successful novelist who writes about farm life and its inhabitants. Helen has baked 6,000 loaves of bread in the past 15 years! When a salesman comes to their farm and wants to sell Parnassus (a traveling bookstore/van with a horse), Helen gets mad that her brother will go off yet again to have adventures which he will write a book about. Consequently, leaving her to tend the farm and all chores. Instead, Helen buys Parnassus off the man to spite her brother but then has an adventure of her own!

The sequal is 'Haunted Bookshop.' I also recommend, Used and Rare, Slightly Chipped, and Warmly Insribed-- all 3 by Larry and Nancy Goldstone. Also 84 Charring Cross Road and the Dutchess of Bloomsberry Street.

"A man who's fond of books need never starve." So reckons Roger Mifflin, the last of the truly independent booksellers, who loads a horse-drawn wagon with books and brings literature home to the plain man. Roger calls his wagon Parnassus on Wheels after the mountain sacred to the Muses. He believes all people need a book and that he is just the man to recommend the perfect book for each person. Roger may be the first book discounter because he thinks every book should be sold for its worth and not for the price the publisher has marked. Roger deems himself to be just the man to make that determination.

"Parnassus on Wheels" is also a sweet romance story between Roger and Helen McGill, a lonely woman who lives on a farm and whose life comes to life when Parnassus and Roger come swaying up her path. Roger sells her Parnassus on Wheels and teaches her how to promote books. Their adventures on the way to Brooklyn fill this book with contemporary color about a time during the beginning of the 20th century, when books were a rare and perfect mystery for the few. If you are a bibliophile, and you must be if you are reading this review of this obscure novel about bookselling, then you'll enjoy reading about Helen and Roger's adventures roaming the countryside to bring books to the masses.

Do you love books and learning? Do you delight in spending the afternoon browsing the stacks at the library? Are you in the mood for something light, amusing, captivating, and utterly delightful? Do you believe in true love, somehow, someway? If you said yes to most of these questions, then read Parnassus on Wheels. This is the most delightful and charming book I've come across in years. It brought tears to my eyes and made me laugh, and that doesn't happen often when I'm reading a book. In fact, I wish I had my own Parnassus and that I could travel the countryside selling books.

By the way, it's a page turner too! A great gift idea for a friend that loves to read. Enjoy.

At the heart of Trollope's Phineas Finn lies quite a unique (and perhaps presciently postmodern) notion of politics. However, to get at this theory, we readers must wade through the immense amount of exposition that typifies Trollope's writing. We must patiently and assiduously gather plot details from the frequent and plentiful parlor chat, table talk, and other various and sundry gossip that Trollope uses to advance what is an otherwise exceedingly meager plot. Nevertheless, such exposition, which moves at a pace roughly equivalent to that of continental drift, rewards the reader with quite a keen insight into mid-nineteenth century British politics and its relationship to the reality of human nature.

Perhaps the easiest way to approach the political critique at the heart of this novel is by defining the operative assumptions underlying representative politics in general. In theory, representative government is intended to grant the citizenry a say in legislative process, albeit indirectly. A particular representative is supposed to vote on a piece of proposed legislation in such a way that reflects the greater concerns of his constituency. Prior to the events of Phineas Finn, British representative government is grappling with the issue of whom to extend the franchise based on the criteria of real wealth, property, region of origin, etc. One thus gets the sense that the presence of such exclusionary criteria betrays a rather Platonic distaste for general democracy on the part of the parliament ministers. Thus, in creating a system of barriers or gateways between the public at large and the legislative apparatus, the governing body reduces the potential for an anarchic clamor of myriad and wide-ranging interests on the part of the citizenry, which could potentially derail the legislative process altogether. As a result a properly civic-minded representative may always act for the good of his constituency by exercising his judgment, regardless of whether or not his vote conflicts with his constituents' desires. In other words, built into this system of government is the elitist conviction that the governed may be at times too unruly to exercise its franchise prudently. Therefore, by withholding the franchise from those deemed too ignorant to vote wisely (a determination based on various socioeconomic considerations), and by inserting elected officials between the enfranchised and the legislative apparatus itself, government achieves a normative regularity.

However, with the implementation of such a system of governments also come opportunities to exploit and abuse the system. A certain aphorism-- which I attribute to Michel Foucault, though I am not entirely certain that it is indeed his-- comes to mind: "a system is defined by what escapes it." In other words, because a system results from the desire to perpetuate the plane of consistency from which it emerges, the system must necessarily exclude that which is inconsistent with its purpose. Therefore, around any system arises a margin of excluded possibilities and potentialities; however, those dedicated to the system seek to refine it in such a way as to increase its power to envelop and re-absorb that which it had originally pushed to its margins. Thus any system exists in a state of perpetual refinement because it aims to absorb back into itself that which has escaped it into the margins.

Into such a system steps the young and callow Phineas Finn, a man who is indeed marginal in that he is Irish and a commoner, and it is that position of marginality which the system seeks to incorporate into itself. However, one must understand that the system does not incorporate into itself those who dwell at its margins in order to empower them. Rather, it seeks to neutralize the threateningly unregulated marginality that individuals like Phineas Finn represent by bringing them into its regulatory, normalizing regime, and as we shall soon see, this is precisely what almost happens to Phineas.

With the above in mind, one may ask if whether there is any real benefit to entering such a system, if it is indeed essentially neutralizing and normalizing. I answer provisionally that the system into which Phineas enters, i.e., British Parliament, conceals its regulatory, homogenizing and neutralizing essence beneath a seductive veneer of power and celebrity, and it is this veneer to which Phineas succumbs. That is, it seems that at first a government office offers one the ability to satisfy one's desires, because it is a forum policymaking that also generates a cult of celebrity, and I need not explain the advantages of being a celebrity. Therefore, although we may initially think Phineas one lucky devil, we soon discover that Phineas's various political adventures are characterized by the necessity of forsaking that which he desires. For example, Phineas must abandon his desire for Lady Laura Standish because he cannot satisfy Lady Laura's own political ambitions, and later his political indebtedness to Lord Brantford forces him to abandon of his desire for Violet Effingham, with whom Lord Chiltern is in love. In fact, Phineas soon discovers that posturing, longwinded orations and cloakroom alliances epitomize politics more than any deep desire to get things done.

Mr. Kennedy, on the other hand, is quite a virtuous consummate politician, because he is devoted to carrying out every administrative detail that accompanies government office. In truth though, he is really nothing more than a particularly diligent paper pusher. But, however propitious his demeanor is to the endless administrative duties he must carry out, Trollope nevertheless portrays him as a dry, sober, and nearly humorless. Furthermore, Trollope also portrays Mr. Kennedy a sort of gentle but effective disciplinarian in his married life. Thus we may conclude that political success requires the abnegation, or at least the endless deferral, of one's true desires, and that the most successful politician is one who can most effectively subordinate his desire to the workings of government. Therefore, the system seduces Phineas and his peers with a promise of power that it never delivers, and furthermore the system steals one's position of resistance from him via assimilation into a normalizing regime.

Thus we have arrived at the essence of Trollope's political critique: that the British system of representative government is not dedicated to progress, but to stasis. The government preserves and extends the influence of the status quo through a subtle and complex array of practices: e.g., needlessly repetition of proposed legislature, stupifyingly long-winded filibusters, etc. These practices thus result in a perpetual deferral of desire on the part of plebeian, politician and rising young man alike.

All merits of the novel itself aside (and I did enjoy it very much), this edition seems to have been cobbled together either hastily or carelessly. It was full of errors in punctuation and spelling (including inconsistent spelling of characters' names) which I can hardly believe are the author's. It was a disappointment to me, especially given the fine tradition of the Everyman Library.

Also, the notes on the text, as is unfortunately so common, give away major plot points. I would strongly advise anyone reading for pleasure rather than scholarship skip the notes, or read them only once you've finished the book.

That said, Phineas Finn was a wonderful read. I began Trollope with Can You Forgive Her?, and while I did like it, I liked Phineas so much more. Unlike many male novelists of the period (especially those who were, as Trollope, embraced at the time), he demonstrates a sympathy for and understanding of the difficult choices presented to the women of his time, and does not shrink from presenting women who are intelligent, complex, and quite at home in the political world of London. Lady Laura Standish, Miss Violet Effingham, and Madame Max Goesler might each have been the heroines of their own novels--indeed, their complexities and the depths of their emotional and political lives throw Phineas's own lack of depth and complexity into relief. And by that I don't mean that Trollope nodded while writing his hero, but that he rather deftly endowed him with indifferent qualities as compared to the women his life.

I wouldn't give away the ending of the novel, but I confess I was a little disappointed in Phineas's final choice. Trollope was, after all, a Victorian gentleman, and perhaps he must be forgiven for wrapping up his hero's adventures in what seemed to me rather a prosaic way. I have yet to read Phineas Redux, and perhaps that sequel may redeem Mr. Finn yet.

PHINEAS FINN is a book of many virtues and one unfortunate flaw. The flaw lies in the ending, of which I can say nothing here without giving away a bit of the plot. Let me just say that the ending is a bit of a "tack on." Trollope himself confessed in his AUTOBIOGRAPHY that he botched the ending, and explains that when he decided to write a second novel starring Phineas Finn, he awkwardly had to correct the mistakes he made in the ending of the previous book.

The virtues of the book lie in part in its presentation of the social complexities of the British upper class in 1860s. While a political history of the period could explain the various ins and outs of the major pieces of legislation dealt with at the time, Trollope shows us how many individuals at the time actually felt about these issues from the inside. In this way, Trollope performs a service that no historian ever could. Virtually all the major political figures of the time, from Gladstone to Disraeli appear under thinly veiled aliases.

But the true heart of the book is Trollope's great characters. I absolutely love Jane Austen. She is one of my two or three favorite writers. But sometimes I find the enormous propriety of her characters to be a tad tiring. In these way her characters, as magnificent as they otherwise might be, sometimes seem a little less than fully human. Trollope's characters, on the other hand, often fail to act with complete propriety. They do improper things, and feel improper emotions. Our hero falls in love with one woman, then another, feels attraction to another, and falls in love with yet another, and in general fails in his role as a great romantic hero. A woman marries someone she doesn't love, yet retains feelings for another, and suffers from the threat of a bad marriage. Another woman is attracted to two men, and must decide which. Two close friends love the same woman. I find all this emotional complexity to be extremely compelling.

Trollope's most compelling and interesting characters are nearly all female. In the book, Lord Chiltern seems cardboardish and unbelievable, the title character likable but not terribly vivid. But whenever Lady Laura, or Madame Goesler, or Violet Effingham take the stage, the novel comes to life. This is not unique to this novel. In nearly all his books, Trollope's most compelling characters are female.

If we could give half stars, I would give this one four and a half stars because of the weak ending. But I will stick with five rather than four, partly because the rest of the book easily makes up for the weakish ending, and one can view the excellent PHINEAS REDUX as the real ending of the novel. Either way, I heartily recommend the novel.

If I had read this book in the mid-90s as I was groping through the stock market, and feeling thrilled at my success.. I would have probably preserved that thrill a little longer. I could have avoided getting burnt for sure.

A mandatory reading for people who are looking at long-term investing. Chapters 6, 7 & 8 deal with portolio diversification and are relvant and insightful. I found it to be a very useful education and not-too-difficult to follow (but then I have taken finance and accounting classes in school).

The other title along similar lines is "The Intelligent Asset Allocator" and this one has a good correlation tables across all major asset classes on a quarterly and annual basis. very useful and practical piece of information that is missing here.

But there are enough other useful and helpful pieces of information. Overall, definitely a thumbs up.

There are many things to like about this book. The emphasis is on providing investment advisors with the information on asset allocation they need to connect successfully with clients. The only real flaw I see in the book is the watering down of material so that clients can understand it. I understand the necessity of doing this but it does leave open the door for dishonesty of the car salesman variety. Every investor even comtemplating using an investment advisor or even a broker should read this book from cover to cover. If he/she hears anything from the selected advisor that deviates much at all from what is here he/she should run not walk out the door. Perhaps the most important contribution of the book is the emphasis on the interaction of portfolio components to produce higher returns than undiversified or underdiversified portfolios. Gibson uses the Commodities Index as one of the portfolio components along with the EAFE, S&P 500, and REITs to show this. This index component is available in practical form as the Oppenheimer Real Assets fund. If you have net investment assets that allow private money management this is not a problem as the money management firm can buy more than 1 million dollars worth and distribute it among the clients. If you do not qualify for a typical money management firm the mutual fund charges a 5.75% load thereby making rebalancing something of a problem. Perhaps infrequent rebalancing would work. Therein lies the problem with the book. Even though Gibson is as honest as the day is long, the information presented is designed to handle the clients expectations and fears. All kinds of techniques and information are presented most of it assuming very little brains from the people who made all that money ( all of whom we would normally be assured are brilliant not just at making money but in all aspects of their lives ). A,B,C,D are all presented but when portfolio design time comes E is recommended and not just due to tailoring to the individuals needs or risk tolerance. Gibson tells the reader that it is necessary to manage the clients expectations and to make the portfolio more like that of the clients friends or more in keeping with clients prior expectations and thereby more acceptable. This may be true. But Berstein does the same thing in The Intelligent Asset Allocator. His reasoning is a little different:many of the models primarily rely on data mining or make certain assumptions and he believes in the use of index funds almost exclusively. So Bersteins portfolios also rely a great deal on judgement. Both believe that tracking error from the S&P 500 may be an issue. When all is said and done this is very much an art form. It is also very much a sales technique albeit an important one. Nevertheless, both this book and The Intelligent Asset Allocator are required reading for any serious investor. Gibson's book also has the best discussion of client risk assessment I have seen.

I don't think you'll find better advice.

If you would have followed this books "ABCD" allocation, you would have made almost all the gain of the 90's and even been slightly up thru the disaster of the 00's. Better than down 48% for the SP500 eh?

Your broker will hate you if you buy this book, but then maybe that's the best thing that could happen. Stop pretending you can predict the future and start managing your risk.

Given the flawlessly smooth machinery of THE HOUSE OF MIRTH and THE CUSTOM OF THE COUNTRY, it's kind of weird to come across a Wharton novel as structurally sloppy as this one. More uncharacteristically yet, the first three chapters, in my opinion, are just plain shabbily written. But Wharton is never without her reasons, and once she's disposed of the characters' "backstory" as expeditiously (if inelegantly) as possible at the top of the book, she hits her stride in earnest and gives us all of the pleasures of a great Wharton tale -- chiseled prose, trenchant humor, sociological precision, briskly paced and compactly dramatized.

Something that strikes me about this book: it'd make a much better movie, be much easier to adapt, than either HOUSE OF MIRTH or AGE OF INNOCENCE. It's got fewer locations, a much smaller cast of characters -- heck, it even has a happy ending, and an honestly earned one. (In fact, the conceit it starts with -- a couple in love who'd like to stay together, but alas, there's no money in it -- is pretty much the idea Preston Sturges started with in THE PALM BEACH STORY, an audience-pleaser for sure.)

The Glimpses of the Moon is undeniably not Edith Wharton's best work, but that doesn't keep it from being a very rich story. Wharton does one of her best jobs ever of getting and keeping her reader's interest in the main characters and their friends, society, and lives. If you have read Wharton before, you know that she does a flawless job of this anyway, so let me assure you that TGOTM is outstanding in this sense. I couldn't get over the fact that Susy defines potential self-discovery so perfectly. Wharton somehow keeps us from siding entirely with Nick, who is close to being morally perfect. Even when Susy is at her most primitive and ruthless, Wharton reminds us, subliminally it seems, that she is still a 'good' character. In a way, Wharton presents us with a question and a problem in her presentation of Nick and Susy. In a world where money is needed not only to thrive physically but also socially, there are two ways to deal with the fact that you have less of it than everyone else: You can be like Nick or you can be like Susy. They are at two opposite ends of the spectrum and they stand for two completely different forms of action. They love each other, too, and this makes the issue even more of a puzzle. Which character would you choose to act like? Even more importantly, which character's actions most defines your own actions in 'real life?' Wharton never suggests that either way is the right way. As readers, we can only examine the consequences of both characters' actions and notice how the book ends. It's not surprising that Wharton hides her answer in a love story.

This story is much lighter and faster paced than The Age of Innocence. Nick and Susy are attractive, stylish, and interesting; but alas, they are poor. They meet and are instantly attracted to one another. Each has been used to living from friend to friend, receiving lodging and gifts in exchange for their elegant company, but now what will they do?

They hatch a plan to get married, enjoy each other under the condoning blanket of matrimony, and live off wedding gifts of money and loaned honeymoon villas for a year or so. Or until either one got a better offer.

Then, oops! They fall in love, create a misunderstanding, part ways for a while, each thinking miserably that they must be apart from the other; then the satisfying and inevitable happens...but you'll have to read it for yourself.

A delightful romp through 1920's society!

The continuing saga of a mother and her two daughters.Mrs Baines is the middle aged boisterous woman who runs rule of the family business as her invalid husband lies in wait of his demise.The Baines` have two young daughters-Constance ( intelligent and stable)and Sofia (beautiful and flighty).the ideal of the story was to examine how one would perceive "a Mrs Baines" if you were to encounter her on the street or in a cafe.would you see her as an old rude lady?Would you be able to invision the possibility that in her younger days she was as Constance and Sofia are? And ther lies the basis of the story-how does one go from being a beautiful,fun loving girl to a boisterous old lady.Well as the story delves further into their lives we witness everything that happens and therefore shapes their lives.In real life events, whether large or small will determine our next path in life and here we get to see where they end up.
A terrific read for something written in 1908.

I'm certainly not the only person in the world who thinks of this book as a masterpiece. The fact that H.G. Wells, Henry James, and Virginia Woolf all praise this book as being so is one of the reasons I picked it up. In spite of that, I really read it without set expectations.

Briefly, to say what has already been said before, The Old Wives Tale is exactly that - a tale of three women who marry in very different circumstances. Mrs. Baines, the mother, is a life who is only briefly touched upon. However, the seperate lives of the two sisters, Sophia and Constance, are the crux of the book. Each life takes its' turn. We are first told about Constance, then about Sophia, and finally, about their reunion. Constance, whose name is not a coincidence, lives a simple provincial life, and Sophia, whose name also matches her persona, chooses romance and adventure. There is only one villain, and yet, he is perhaps the most powerful and chilling of all villains, Time. His grasping, clutching, suffocating presence is ever felt throughout the book, and looms even larger once that final page is turned. In the end, Sophia and Constance each pay the price for their choices, and the true cost of those choices is left for the reader to decide. As unique as we are, we will each believe something different about Sophia and Constance in the end, and that is precisely the point.

To sum up the experience of The Old Wives Tale, a tale of three women living their lives, and their lives changing them (or perhaps not changing them, is that it is the most honest approach to human psychology I have ever read. The lives we read about, Mrs. Baines, Sophia, Constance, and even those who surround them, could be anyone's. In fact, most of us can find someone in this book we could point to and say "that's me". No character, no matter how brief their exit or entrance into this story, is insignificant. Each person gives us a fresh perspective on the human response to events and to, of course, other humans. The three main characters are presented with sheer, unsympathetic, yet respectful honesty. We are not introduced to inhuman, perfect, idealistic souls in this book. Nor are we looking through the eyes of the wicked. Instead, we are searching the souls of ordinary people and in the end, are left with a question about our own existence.

In fact, it should be a large clue to readers when they see that the title of the fourth section is, What Life Is. It is here that something occurred which I totally unexpected, and it left me quite shaken - in fact, desperate. I found that I had been brought from the comfortable vantage point of observing these fictional lives, which are at times inexplicably amusing and heroic, to a sudden uncomfortable sensation that the characters were real and had turned toward me - the reader - begging the question "What of your life? What have you done with it? What have you accomplished?"

That subtle change of vantage point was shocking, and ingenious. Without criticizing his own creation, the author was able to communicate the importance of living our lives to the fullest without telling us how. This fact alone shows great wisdom. Sophia and Constance experience remarkable things, no more remarkable than most people, but remarkable just the same. Each reacts differently because they are different, and each has a different idea about how to find happiness and how to deal with life's disappointments. Both are frequently of the opinion that they could improve someone else's life, yet have not found real satisfaction in their own. Each makes mistakes, and each perform the heroic. The author will on the same page be blunt about their faults and tender with their plight. He tells their story without judgement, and yet in the end, you feel you have read a very wise judgement on the nature of the human race. Here, reader, you will find no prescription for life, but a question that begs a diagnosis. The author makes it starkly clear that the remedy, or whether a remedy is even required, is up to you.

The Old Wives Tale is not a dark story. It is not a comedy. It is not high adventure or mystery. In fact, it is many of these things put together to create something REAL. And it has shaken me to the core.

I first read this wonderful book many years ago. Recently, I happened to pick it up again (before giving it to my daughter to read), and thought, well, I'll just read a few pages, to see if it's as good as I remember it to be. I stayed up all night rereading it. "The Old Wives' Tale" is a heartbreaker, but superb. As somone else has pointed out, there's a real villain in the book, but the villain isn't human: it's Time. It's difficult for me to imagine anyone reading the last few lines without being touched. I agree with Somerset Maugham: I feel presumptuous even praising it. For those who were "disappointed" with it, may I say, with another commentator, that these people will probably be disappointed with The Day of Judgment.

With a book like this, many readers cheat themselves by assuming that they already know what it's about, because they heard the outline of the story before, and therefore they have no need to really read it. A lot like the way some people treat the Bible, or at least large parts of the Bible. Anyway, I recently re-read this book to one of my daughters, and can report that upon close consideration, this book is really a retrospective Calvinistic explanation for how old Dr. Boekman finds a successor for his surgical practice, following Dr. Boekman's disappointment in his only son, who never liked medicine and who in fact found a reason to run away from Holland to resettle in England to pursue a business career. The rich descriptions of Dutch history and culture form the context for this drama.

Consequently, Dr. Boekman's whole outlook on life, exemplified by his perpetual frown, descends into depression as he humorlessly goes about his surgical practice, all the while increasing his fame which radiates from Amsterdam far out into the provinces, symbolized by the transportation and communication pathway of the frozen canals, over which all ages and classes of people happily skate through what used to be extremely cold winter months in Holland. These canals have not frozen solid on a regular basis for many decades.

These frozen canals in turn exemplify Dr. Boekman's frozen heart, which ultimately gets melted as a result of the importuning of Raff Brinker's son, young Hans, who cajoles old Dr. Boekman into taking a look at old Raff, who has been an invalid since suffering a closed head trauma while working out on the dikes during a fierce storm.

Dr. Boekman ends up surgically unblocking the "brainfreeze" suffered by Raff Brinker, who comes back to life "talking like an Amsterdam lawyer" which is a complete turn around from his invalid state where he appeared to be a distant, angry, barely controllable hulk crouching in his house by the fire, and casting a gloom of social obloquy which tainted not only his children, but his very cottage, in the eyes of most of the other respectable members of Dutch society, as they skated by on their local frozen canal.

By the end of the book, the connection achieved by Hans Brinker between his remote father and the remote surgeon seems to have spread, or networked, and young Hans is a rising surgeon practicing with Dr. Boekman, and happily married, while Dr. Boekman's biological son returns, or is redeemed back from England to practice a bustling business trade also in Amsterdam. The silver skates and the races on the canals are mainly a way for Hans to prove something to himself, that he can set his mind to what he wishes to achieve, and against all odds achieve it. The fact that all of this works to bring reconciliation and happiness back into people who are disconnected and frozen, rather than constituting a sappy, Dickensian series of unlikely coincidences, instead creates more of an echo of predestination than merely a "happy ending."

But then again, this is only one explanation of what we have here in this classic book.

I thought it was a wounderful story for the whole family to read.

Is this the greatest book ever? Maybe, maybe not. Shakespeare had some good ones. Either way, this merits the five stars I've given it. Delve into one of the greatest stories ever told, and learn all about Holland. By the time you're done, you'll want to go ice skating.

So strap on your wooden skates and squeek across the ice of Ole Holland. Who gets the silver skates? Who is the greatest hero? Is hidden fortune just under the peat moss?

Dat hangt er van af . . .

When rating Shakespeare, I am rating it against other Shakespeare; otherwise, the consistent 4-5 stars wouldn't tell you much. So if you want to know how this book rates against the general selection of books in the world, I suppose it might rate four stars; it certainly rates three. The language, as usual in Shakespeare, is beautiful. Still, it's far from Shakespeare's best.

For one thing, this is one of those cases, not uncommon in Shakespeare's comedies, in which the play has suffered a great deal by the changes in the language since Shakespeare's time; it loses a great deal of the humor inherent in a play when the reader needs to keep checking the footnotes to see what's happening, and this play, particularly the first half of it, virtually can't be read without constant reference to the notes; even with them, there's frequently a question as to what's being said. At least in the edition that I read (the Dover Thrift edition) the notes frequently admit that there's some question as to the meaning of the lines, and there is mention of different changes in them in different folios.

But beyond this, as an overweight, balding, middle-aged libertine, I object to the concept that Falstaff is ridiculous just because he is in fact unwilling to concede that it is impossible that a woman could want him. Granted, he's NOT particularly attractive, but that has more to do with his greed, his callousness, and his perfect willingness to use people for his own ends, to say nothing of his utter lack of subtlety.

Is it truly so funny that an older, overweight man might attempt to find a dalliance? So funny that the very fact that he does so leaves him open to being played for the fool? Remember, it isn't as though he refused to take "no" for an answer; he never GOT a "no". He was consistently led on, only to be tormented for his audacity. Nor is he making passes at a nubile young girl; the target of his amorous approaches is clearly herself middle-aged; after all, she is the MOTHER of a nubile young marriageable girl. And given the fact that she is married to an obnoxious, possessive, bullying and suspicious husband, it is not at all unreasonable for Falstaff to think that she might be unhappy enough in her marriage to accept a dalliance with someone else.

If laughing at fat old men who have the audacity not to spend the last twenty years of their lives with sufficient dignity to make it seem as if they were dead already is your idea of a good time, you should love this play. I'll pass.

i've just finished reading/watching all of shakespeare's comedies and mww is one of the funnier ones. it is a lighthearted look at marital jealousy and features one of shakespeare's great fools, falstaff (of henry iv fame). the out-and-out funniest shakepearean play is still "taming of the shrew", imho, but mwv runs well ahead of the laggards, and certainly well ahead of such better known plays as "twelfth night" and "as you like it".

Shakespeare, considering he wrote this little gem of a comedy in a mere 14 days for the Virgin Queen, pulls off a play that proves both witty and fun. Unequivocally, The Merry Wives of Windsor makes for a more enjoyable play if seen live. Nonetheless, reading it is the 2nd best thing.

Sir John Falstaff is once again such a fool - but a lovable and hilarious one at that. Having read Henry V - where Falstaff ostensibly had met his end - I was pleased to see him so alive(pardon the pun) in this short, albeit clever play. It is no surprise that The Merry Wives of Windsor enjoyed such a long and successful stage run during Shakespeare's day and continues to be one of his most popularly staged plays. Recommended as a fun break from the more serious and murderous Shakespearean tragedies.

"Why, then the world's mine oyster,
Which I with sword will open." - Pistol

The Blithedale Romance is a somewhat dark, depressing tale of idealism gone awry and of friendship and love torn asunder by private ambitions. The romance of these pages is not what many modern readers may expect to find here; there is no penultimate consummation of love among these characters, nor is there much happiness indeed to be discerned from the complexity of their relations one with another. Much has been made of Hawthorne's own temporary residence at the utopian-minded Brook Farm a decade previous to the publication of this work; it is true that some of the experiences derive from his own memories, but Hawthorne went to great pains to make clear that this is a romance first and foremost and bears no direct relation to the experiences of his own life. Those who would read this novel in an attempt to get at Hawthorne's true feelings about the utopian socialism he flirted with and watched from afar during his pivotal creative years may well miss out on the thought-provoking treatment of such wonderfully literary, fascinating characters as Hollingsworth the idealistic philanthropist, Zenobia the modern feminist reformer with a fatal flaw inimical to her self-realization, and the sweet and frail Priscilla.

The first-person narrator of this story is Miles Coverdale, a man difficult to come to terms with. He joins with the pioneers behind the utopian farming community of Blithedale and truly takes heart in the possibility of this new kind of communitarian life offering mankind a chance to live lives of purpose and fulfillment, yet at times he steps outside of events and seems to view the whole experience as a study in human character and a learning experience to which his heart-strings are only loosely bound. The drama that unfolds is told in his perspective only, and one can never know how much he failed to discern or the degree to which his own conjectures are correct. His eventual castigation of Hollingsworth cannot be doubted, however. This rather unfeeling man joins the community on the hidden pretext of acquiring the means for fulfilling his overriding utopian dream of creating an edifice for the reformation of criminals. This dream takes over his life, Coverdale observes, and his once-noble philanthropic passion morphs him into an overzealous, unfeeling man who brings ruin upon those who were once his friends. It is really Zenobia, though, upon which the novel feeds. She is a fascinating woman of means who makes the Blithedale dream a reality, a bold reformer seeking a new equality for women in the world who ultimately, at Hawthorne's bidding, suffers the ignominious fate of the fragile spirit she seemed to have overcome.

This is not a novel that will immediately enthrall you in its clutches. The first half of the novel is sometimes rather slow going, but I would urge you not to cast this book aside carelessly. The final chapters sparkle with drama and human passion, and you find yourself suddenly immersed in this strange community of tragic friends-turned-foes. You care deeply what happens to such once-noble spirits, and while you may not find joy in the tragic conclusion of the ill-fated social experiment of Blithedale, you will certainly find your soul stirred by the tragedy of unfolding events.

vintage is always a pleasure, presuming of course that we're talking about the real thing. there's a regal pace about hawthorne's prose that is undeniably hawthorne and no one else. there's that rigid, regimental quality uniquely hawthornian, a sense of iron discipline, utterly lacking in modern american prose. if vintage is what you seek, check out the blithedale romance: it'll set you straight.

This is not only a book with which any Hawthorne fan should be familiar, it is a necessity to anyone who is studying the Romantic Tradition. This text is an elegant commentary on the ideals that the Romantics held dear, such as the authenticity of a life close to the earth, the superiority of existence outside of common society rather than within it, and our innate ability, with enough well-directed effort, to transcend our own humanity. Like a breath of fresh air after Wordsworth, Thoreau, Keats, and both Shelleys, Hawthorne's cynicism and pessimism on these topics shine clearly through this work. Though admittedly he has failed in his announced effort to make the text cheerful and lighthearted, this is not such a complete failure as one may initially suppose, when this novel is contrasted with his others. Much of the humor that is in the book is centered around the narrator, Coverdale, whose nature forces him to fit in with his surroundings in a way which is a bit askew, precipitating enjoyable scenes which the reader can appreciate, if he or she has refrained from judging this main character. The treasure in this book, however, is not mainly in its humor, but rather (for me at least - each person presumably takes from it something different) in the elegance with which so many universal truths are exposed (often only partially, so that the reader can feel a sense of triumph when they wholly uncover them) to our conscious awareness. As you have no doubt already surmised, I highly recommend this novel.

I have long wanted to read the writing of Mrs. Gaskell, who was acquainted with almost all my favorite authors. Imagine having know Charlotte Bronte, George Elliot, Charles Dickens, and Wilkie Collins! Therefore, I was happy to find North and South available on unabridged audio cassettes. I now know why Mrs. Gaskell is not in the same literary class as her better-known friends. Although I completely enjoyed the novel (and wished it would continue on longer), Mrs. Gaskell described Margaret's (the major character) "sweet low voice", "gentle manner", "sweet expressive eyes" a few too many times. I did enjoy the story, but I fear Mrs. Gaskell is a writer more similar to Grace Livingstone Hill than to George Eliot

I fell in love with this marvellous novel and it's main protagonists, Margaret Hale & John Thornton, when I first read it some five years ago. I remember when I was reading the chapters describing the riot at Thornton's mill while on the way home from work on the train, I was so caught up with the story that I nearly missed my stop.

One of the things that particularly impresses me about "North and South" is that Elizabeth Gaskell actually concentrates as much, if not more, on the principal male character's (John Thornton's) sexual and romantic desires and inner life rather than on the main female character (Margaret Hale). This is somewhat unusual to find in a book by female writer of the Victorian era. I feel that it makes the character of John Thornton one of the most interesting and attractive in 19th century literature.

His passionate love and desire for Margaret border on the obsessive at times. However, Elizabeth Gaskell details his torturous struggles with his emotions in such a empathethic way that you feel immensely drawn to Thornton from the first time you meet him. The scenes where Margaret rebuffs his attempts at a marriage proposal and the aftermath where he dazedly goes off into the countryside to calm down are vividly written.

I thoroughly disagree with some of the other reviewer's comments below, especially the person on 17 March 2003 who cannot even get the author's name right. It makes you wonder if they have read the same book as I did. I have no respect for people who impose inappropriate and modern notions on a work from this era and give their opinions, with such a sneering tone, in a trite and dismissive critique.

I know that there are many "North and South" fans out there who, like me, can appreciate the novel for what it is, not what they think it should be.

It is simply a beautifully written, engaging and satisfying book.

This is one of the best books I've ever read. It should be known that Elizabeth Gaskell was a protege of Charles Dickens. This book is a book written by a woman who was ahead of her times. The heroine is such a heroic and exciting character, while at the same time kind and benevolent. The plot is fast moving and exhilarating. I find this a treasure in English Literature...a must for the serious reader ...and especially women. Unfortunately Miss Gaskell died before she reached the level of fame she so deserved. This book was recommended to me by a professor of English Literary Philosophy at Univ. of So. Cal. What a find!

This book started off extremely slow and never did pick up to the pace that I was expecting. I had heard so many good things about this author and her books, I was excited to read it, but I could have left it on the shelf. I guess I should not have read it after the fast action pace of Supreme Justice. But, I won't be deterred. I have another book by this author and hopefully will like it better than this one

...this book started out slow.

However, once you got past the introductions, it picked up the pace with lightning speed. There was a lot of information about Louisiana culture, one that I hadn't realized was so different from the rest of the US.

An interesting read about a woman determined to find out who killed her husband, I endorse this book to anyone willing to trudge through the first few chapters.

Carole Ann Gibson is here to stay.

Candace...

I didn't actually enjoy reading this book until the very end. The beginning was extremely slow, but I had enough faith to believe that the author would pick up the pace eventually. I was right!! The ending was very exciting and suprises popped up at every turn. If you begin reading and find it difficult because the beginning drags along, hang in there! Penny saved the best for last.