To Kill A Mocking Bird is a classic written by a young Alabama woman named Harper Lee. It takes place in Maycomb County soon after the Civil War. The main character's name is Jean Louise Finch and she is also known as Scout. She starts out in the story being about seven years old and as time goes on she ages too. Scout's father is an attorney whose current case is defending a black man accused of rape. As it takes place right after the Civil War, there is a lot of anti-African sentiiment going on so Scout is made fun of at school for her father just doing the right thing. This is one of the great American classics and one of my favorite books. A must read for anyone who enjoys reading a great book.

This book was well written and captured every readers' attention. When I first read this book in high school, I found it very hard to understand. My second time reading this book was three years later, and this time I really have a clear understanding of this book. This book captured all my attention because once I started reading this book, I don't wanted to put it down. Since this book was written in a kid's point of view, so we as an adult, we can learn many new and interesting lessons. I especially love the lesson that Atticus gave Scott on how to get along with different kind of people. You should really read this book and find out this quote because once you encounter this quote, I guarantee you will love it and you will use it in your daily life. I also like the way how Harper Lee set up the characteristics of all characters, especially Boo Radly. Boo Radly had enlightened and created many mystery on the book. This is an excellent novel and I love everything in the novel, so I hope I can read this book again in the near future soon.

I felt this book was Great! Overall plot: This book is from Scout's point of view. She is a tomboyish girl that gets in adventures w/her brother Jem and Dill. Her father, Atticus, is a lawyer defending a black man accused of rape. the setting is about the late 1920's. Anyways, this girl and her brother also have a neighbor who never comes out. They call him Boo Radley. They get into trouble many times just trying to get a peek at him. It talks about troubles w/ teachers and neighbors. So what is Boo like? I suggest you read and find out! This book was sad, humorous, and serious. It was also very adventurous! Very Great book that I suggest reading.

Three Musketeers by Dumas has got to be one of my favorite books ever written. I decided to read it after seeing the recent movie adaptation. For anyone who liked the movie- read the book-it's a hundred times better! The plot twists are more involved, the characters are allowed to develop properly, the humor is more subtle. Everything about the book is great. I can't remember when I've enjoyed reading a book more than when I read Three Musketeers. I highly recommend this book to anyone who enjoys classic literature, historical fiction, French novels, or just a great story about how good can win over the forces of evil.

Have you only seen Musketeer movies without reading the original book? Then, you're in for a surprise! Dumas' novel isn't as absolutely funny nor as absolutely solemn as many directors tend to present it -actually, The Three Musketeers is a well-balanced story where you can laugh and cry at different moments, as in real life. Of course, the action scenes are great, but I think those chapters in which the characters only talk between them are much better, like when D'Artagnan looks for his friends after the diamond studs affair. I strongly recommend anyone to read this book and fall in love with the personifications of Nobility, Strength, Intelligence and Courage, or Athos, Porthos, Aramis and D'Artagnan, as Dumas named them, and discover why the book is named The Three Musketeers when they were actually four.

This book was one of the most captivating adventure tales I've ever read. It follows the adventures of the four french musketeers (well, three of them are musketeers to start off with): Athos, Porthos, Aramis, and d'Artanagan. The book is filled with swashbuckling action, government and court intriuge, and new plot twists at every turn. It paints a wonderful picture of life in past times, set in the colorful world of post-medieval France. Although young d'Artanagan is the hero of this book, the other characters are just as well portrayed. I particuarly liked Athos: his combonation of nobleness, military genius, sorrow, bitterness, thoughtfulness and mystery made me want to skip ahead to his parts of the book. All in all, this was a wonderful read, and a classic for anyone who loves adventure stories. I could find no qualms with this book, except that it did not keep going. Go out and buy it now! You won't be disappointed. All for one, and one for all!

Though very short, one gets the feeling upon completing this work that they have read a very profound book. This is, in my view, one of the best and most essential short novels ever written. Dostoevsky is known for his stunning penetration into human nature and the social hieararchy, and here we see for the first time what a true master he was. The book, in its brevity, touches upon many profoundly important issues: philosophical, religious, social, political. Indeed, it was right in the heart of what were the prevalent intellectual modes of the time it was written. It remains relevant today. (Indeed, as has been well pointed out, this book works, also, as a springboard towards Dostoevsky's later, more ambitious novels.) Part of the reason the book works so well is because the narrarator (who is never named) is so recognizably, touchingly, and pathetically human. Anyone who considers themselves an outcast, or who feels they've never been able to fit in, who is uncomfortable in social situations, feels themselves to be morally or intellectually superior to others for reasons they cannot even fathom, or who are overly emotional and susceptible to constant bouts of depression - or any such things - will undoubtedly identify and sympathasize with Dostoevsky's creation. Another reason it works so well is because of the way in which it is written. Far from being written in the traditional novel or documentary style, this book gives the impression that one is reading a diary of a person's private thoughts - which gives off the very neat effect that you seem to be reading some private, someting you're not supposed to be reading. We see the thoughts as they come to the character, not in any linear narration. He may well be neurotic, psychotic, manic depressive, bi-polar, or egocentric - but he is human, nonetheless. This is a singular, profound, and important literary work of unique value and craftsmanship that sticks a penetrating and insightful knife straight through the heart of human nature.

I've read Notes from Underground twice--once when I was fairly new to Dostoevsky and Russian literature in general, and once after reading many of his other novels and learning a bit about the intellectual and literary climate of Russia in the 1860s from other sources as well. Both times I was deeply impressed, though for different reasons. On the first reading, Notes was simply a very moving, often disturbing psychological portrait of, as is revealed in the first two sentences, a sick and spiteful man. That Dostoevsky could produce this work over 35 years before Freud's heyday was, and still is, extremely impressive to me. What I did not realize on the first reading was the historical importance of the work. For some time, some Russian liberals had been dreaming of creating a utopian state, and more recently the increasing popularity of nihilism (and in particular the critic Chernyshevsky) had led to hopes that the exact laws of human action could be deduced and a rational utopia set up accordingly. Dostoevsky's underground man is a stinging condemnation of this idea, as his behavior shows that individuals do not naturally act according to the best interests of either society or themselves. Though the novel's merits certainly stand alone, it's worth reading a bit about the historical context in which it was written in order to get a better idea of its impact.

A few words about the other works in this edition: Dostoevsky wrote White Nights while in his 20s, before his Siberian exile and while he still held an interest in the Utopian ideas he would later condemn. It's a story of a young man and a young woman, both socially isolated, who happen to meet one night and, over the course of the next three nights, fall in love, with, unsurprisingly, a maudlin ending. The book dragged a bit at first, but I found the second half of it very touching and, though a fairly immature work, it was definitely worth my time.

The Dream of a Ridiculous Man was the last short story Dostoevsky wrote, and contains a very clear version of his notion of the necessity of suffering for love and redemption, expressed through a man who dreams of travelling to another planet identical to earth in which suffering doesn't exist. It's not a really great work, but it's a quick and pleasant read.

The volume also contains three short excerpts from The House of the Dead (the book based on Dostoevsky's imprisonment)--two of them dealing with prisoners' tales of the murders that got them imprisoned, and one a discussion of corporal punishment. The excerpts are fairly interesting, but if this sort of thing fascinates you you're better off getting the whole work, which is published by Penguin Classics.

This short novel has relevance for any individual who chooses to grapple with the onslaught of information that pours forth from various institutions, including modern education and the media. I had read ~Notes from the Underground~ many years ago, and picking it up again proved to be a positive move, philosophically, politically and socially, on a very personal level. The narrator is a 19th century man who has chosen to withdraw from society and rant and rave in a kind of 'neurotic' protest against the ever-prevalent 'rational forces' or normalizing conditions that society is imposing. In brief, his protest is against the popular philosophical view of the time, deterministic materialism. He asks: Is man a free agent? Are his actions and desires his own; or conversely, is he endowed with some Universal nature, where his interests, desires and overall behaviour is predetermined? In his terms, are we "Piano keys", or merely "Organ stops" responding blindly to the 'rational forces' that continually bombard us on a daily basis?

This book is an argument supporting the view that irrationality has its merits. We are in danger of ignoring our own desires in favour of a popular or dominate view. What the underground man is proposing is to be aware of the danger of buying into the proposition that there is a collective 'common good', that all people are essentially the same and desire the same things. He goes on to warn that if the men of 'science' are correct, if our desires and interests are the same, if our behaviour can be recorded on some central data base, where all we have to do to understand how we should behave is by logging onto this data base, what hope does humankind have of experiencing individual needs, creativity, adventure and innovation? According to the underground man, absolutely no hope at all.

The American philosopher, William James, had grappled with the same argument around the same time that this novel was written. He recorded in his diary that his first act of free will was to believe he had free will, and began his new life on that simple but important premise.

Freedom for William James and the underground man is the highest most valuable aspect of our existence. The underground man believed that it was absolutely imperative that we at times go against our 'best interests' even if our free will is an illusion. When considering the barrage of information that continually comes our way, we should attempt to separate the 'wheat from the chaff' according to our desires, beliefs and will - a word of advice from a 19th century 'neurotic'.

It is impossible to illustrate the many facets of this important novel in the limited space provided. Therefore I urge you to open ~Notes from the Underground~ and submerge yourself into the ideas and arguments it proposes we consider.

The first paragraph of this book is perhaps one of the finest examples of modern English diction ever written, inescapably drawing the reader into the lives of a young writer from Dixie, a Gentile holocaust survivor with a haunted past, and her mad Jewish lover. Styron's mellifluous Southern voice weaves an unforgettable story of Stingo, the struggling Thomas Wolfe-in-waiting, cast adrift in the postwar boroughs of New York City. There, in the "kingdom of the Jews," he is witness to his neighbor Sophie's tortured recovery from her own and the world's Holocaust nightmare. Never preachy, Styron nonetheless teaches us about the darkness, the fragility and the strength of the human soul. Despite its macabre subject matter, the book is a paen to delirious, doomed hope, a raised Grail upon the Brooklyn Bridge to the unrelenting forgiveness in a spindly blade of grass emerging from a charred patch of Earth. Unwittingly or not, Styron has truly captured the tragedy and triumph of the Jewish experience: It is not about Judgement Day, only morning, beautiful and fair

I made the decision to read Sophie's Choice after revisiting the Modern Library's 100 best books of the 20th century. I've found that sometimes "classics" can be technically perfect and admirable masterpieces yet not always engaging. This certainly does not pertain to William Styron's novel.

Few books have had me so riveted or emotionally drained after reading them. The saga of Sophie's story is a monumental piece of writing by Styron. Slowly but surely, he builds the story. He expertly weaves real life characters from Auschwitz into the narrative, chillingly recreating that awful scenario.

The main character, Stingo, begins to peel back layers of the truth with flashbacks to pre-war and then occupied Poland. Stark recollections from an emotionally drained Sophie bring descriptions of the terror of life in the concentration camps. From her bourgeous life to these camps and the (as one review aptly put it)unspeakable evil of the decision she was forced to make. It is a stunning moment and one that makes the awful conclusion understood.

One of the best novels I have read in years.

William Styron has written a profoundly moving and disturbing novel with 'Sophie's choice'. The story of Sophie, a beautiful Polish Catholic who survived Auschwitz and was left with no family, and Nathan, her schizophrenic American Jewish lover, as related by Stingo, a naive but sensitive 22 year-old Southerner wishing to be a writer, is, perhaps, one of the most harrowing stories one can manage to read. Styron evidently conducted a considerable amount of research on the Nazi occupation of Poland and the hideous dynamics of their concentration camps, and his synthesis through Sophie (whose name, etymologically, means knowledge) is convincing and compelling. But what makes 'Sophie's choice' go beyond a mere historical novel is the excellent way in which Styron weaves Sophie's story with those of Nathan and Stingo and the deep ruminations on the nature of evil and madness and their consequences. Although Styron sometimes gets long-winded, especially when he has Stingo ponder about sexual matters, the novel succeds in making us understand a sad historical event in more humane terms. Perhaps a creative university professor teaching World War II history would be wise enough to assign this novel to make students realize that history is not, as somebody once facetiously said, 'one damn fact after another'.

There are two good reasons to read Machiavelli's classic, "The Prince."

First, so you'll know what everyone is referring to when you come across the adjective "machiavellian" in news stories or other media. This adjective has become so commonplace (and overused) it is almost a cliche. Also, most who use it have never read this letter from Machiavelli, a Rennaisance courtier to his Prince (written from prison), but they insist on peppering writings with this noun turned adjective so much that as a matter of clearly understanding what is meant by the term, famiality with this brief treatise is helpful.

Second, this book does describe most (not all) power situations very well. From politics to corporations to most settings where advancement, influence and control exist, Machiavelli's observations and rules apply.

You will also discover that Machiavelli was not as evil as he is understood to be in popular thought. What he was doing was describing the rules of the game that have existed and always will exist for many situations involving selfish humans in competition. Machiavelli's rules are neither good nor bad in themselves -- they describe a process. What is good or bad is how those who master Machiavelli's rules use their power and position, in a society that tempers actions according to law and basic Judeo-Christian principals. When those principals do not exist (as in Nazi Germany, the Middle Ages or under Communism, or by those who refuse to live by these constraints), Machiavelli's rules take on their demonic and evil cloak; usually because they serve demonic and evil ends. In societies where positive constraints exist, for example the U.S. political system, Machiavellian behavior can produce excellent results. A good example involves Abraham Lincoln, whose ambition led him to use every legitimate trick and stragety to master (and remove) political opponents. His mastery of Machiavellian behavior constrained by the US political system allowed him to save the Union and end slavery.

To fully appreciate the modern lessons that can be taken from this writing, one must translate Medieval sensibilites to their contemporary counterparts. The casual way in which Machiavelli discusses the need to kill opponents was necessary to those who wished to be princes 500 years ago. Today, of course, "killing" is translated as rendering less powerful, or taking an opponent out of the game.

What does one get from this book? It is a roadmap with insights and lessons about how to 1) get ahead of others to attain power; and 2) maintain and expand one's power in the face of others who would usurp one who is in a desirable position.

This book is about ruthlessness and putting the attainment of goals ahead of any other consideration. Plenty of maxims that are also tossed about frequently in media are to be found in Machiavelli's book: "the end justifies the means," "it is better to be feared than loved," "if you fight the prince, kill the prince" to name a few.

It is essential reading to anyone who would be in a competitive environment and hope to advance, if for no other reason than many of one's competitors operate by Machiavelli's dictums (which arise out of human instinct and selfishness). One does not have to operate according to Machaivelli's code -- many examples of alturism and "pluck and luck" exist to defeat any claim that Machiavelli's road map is essential for success. However, human nature and human history deliver far more examples of ruthless self-interest (Machiavellianism) behind success in power situations.

Is Machiavellianism bad? Not in and of itself. Remember, one must translate the Middle Age ethos to current practices -- there usually isn't blood spilled as a result of today's Machiavellian duels, just power and positon. Most political and business leaders are at least partly Machiavellian. The trick is using one's power to good ends. Thus, even though Lincoln and all of our presidents were Machiavellian in their climb to the White House, some of them did darn good work there. The same is true for business leaders. Jack Welch (GE), Bill Gates (Microsoft), anyone who advances past the first few rungs of the corporate ladder or dominates markets at the expense of competitors is using Machiavelli's dictums. The trick of a just and good society is to set the bounds by which power can be attained and exercised so that good and benefits will flow from those who are able to "claw their way to the top."

To summarize, read this book if you want to 1) truly understand when the adjective "Machiavelli" is used to describe people and 2) understand the rules by which most people navigate their way to power.

Machiavelli wrote this book for the Medici back in a time that is suppossed to be so different from today. Yet, The Prince is as applicable as the day it was wrote- maybe more so. It's a concise, almost surgical, guidebook to world domination. Superficially, this book is written like stereo instructions with precise directions on control of your enemies, followers, and friends. But, deeply, it will force any serious reader to take stock of the lengths neccessary to attain great power. Lives are flited at like pieces on a chess board with absolutely no uneccessary concern (if they can't hurt ya, screw 'em). Why, aside from that whole learning about world domination thing, this book is such a neccessary read for anybody with a stake in daily life is because this is the book your leaders sleep with under their pillow. There hasn't been an intelligent, powerful, and influential political leader that hasn't been influenced by Machiavelli and this book. It's very important to really wrap yourself around reality in reading this book so as to open your own eyes to what people do to lead (not just dictators, facists, and imperialists, but deomcrats and republicans.). This book is Political Reality 101- you must read it.

Based upon Michiavelli's first hand experience as an emissary of the Florentine Republic to the courts of Europe The Prince analyzes the often violent means by which political power is seized and retained, and the circumstance in which it is lost. Because The Prince is a political commentary, and not a work of fiction, Michiavelli does not use "characters" in the sense of a novel or a short story. Instead he draws his examples from the current political and social events, as well as from history. His characters are the political leaders of his time. The book is a declaration in plain language the conduct of great men and the principles of princely governments. The book can be divided into four sections.

1. The types of principalities. Michiavelli lists four types of principalities.

* Hereditary principalities, which are inherited by the ruler.

* Mixed principalities, territories that are annexed to the rulers existing territories.

* New principalities which may be acquired by several methods: by own power, by the power of others by criminal acts or extreme cruelty, or by the will of the people

* Ecclesiastical principalities, namely the papal states belonging to the catholic churches.

2. The character and behavior of the prince. Michiavelli recommends the following character and behavior for princes:

* It is better to be miserly than generous.

* It is better to be cruel than merciful.

* It is better to break promises if keeping than would be against ones interest.

* Princes must avoid making them hated and despised; the goodwill of the people is a better defense than any fortress.

* Princes should undertake great projects to enhance their reputation.

* Princes should choose wise advisors to confide and consult with

3. The types of armies A prince must always pay close attention to military affairs if he wants to remain in power. A prince must lay good foundation and those foundations include good laws and good armies. There cannot be good laws without good armies, and where there are good laws there must be good armies. The study of war should be a prince's main goal, for war is a rulers only art.If princes become too refined to study this art they loose their state. The types of armies are:

* Mercenaries or Auxiliaries (loaned to you by another ruler) are both dangerous and unreliable, as they will maintain their interests preceding yours.

* Native troops composed of ones own citizens or subjects are by far the most desirable kind.

4. Italy's political situation Michiavelli outlines and recommends the following

* The rulers of Italy have lost their states by ignoring the political and military principles.

* Fortune controls half of human affairs, but free will controls the rest, leaving the prince free to act. However, the few princes can adopt their actions to times

Toni Morrison broke the mold when she wrote this book. Song of Solomon is a reflection of not just African-American spirituality, but of the spirituality of Americans as a whole. She reminds us of the meaning of identity, and the power of hope. Macon (Milkman) Dead, the hero, is the spoiled, lazy, and aimless son of a rich black man in Michigan. When learns from his father of a treasure his aunt Pilate had hidden years before, he goes on a search to find it. However, nothing in his life could prepare him for the journey on which he was about to embark. During this journey, he encounters some of the most colorful characters he would ever meet--his mentor and friend, Guitar, his cousins, and a whole host of other people. While I will not ruin the rest of the story for those who have not read this book, I will remind you that the only way to really enjoy this book (or any other book) is to keep an open mind, and expect the unexpected. With this book, Toni Morrison has earned her place in American women's literature and African-American literature.

I recently re-read "Song of Solomon" (for the sixth time) as part of a book club discussion and was once again taken aback by the book's power. It is a novel about coming-of-age and of self-discovery. But it is that and much, much more: In telling the tale of Milkman Dead and all of those that he comes in contact with, Morrison relates the story of not only Black America, but also the human spirit.

"Song of Solomon" is a complex story that borrows from history, African mythology (The Mwindo Epic of the Congo) and the rich tradition of American Literature. No other contemporary American novelist can compete on the same level as Morrison. Her writing is believeable, inciteful and always lyrical. "Song of Solomon" is clearly a must for any english professor's list of great reads.

I recently re-read "Song of Solomon" (for the sixth time) as part of a book club discussion and was once again taken aback by the book's power. It is a novel about coming-of-age and of self-discovery. But it is that and much, much more: In telling the tale of Milkman Dead and all of those that he comes in contact with, Morrison relates the story of not only Black America, but also the human spirit.

"Song of Solomon" is a complex story that borrows from history, African mythology (The Mwindo Epic of the Congo) and the rich tradition of American Literature. No other contemporary American novelist can compete on the same level as Morrison. Her writing is believeable, inciteful and always lyrical. "Song of Solomon" is clearly a must for any english professor's list of great reads.

[This is my review from four years ago, but it still applies.]

If you are looking for tragedy and a dark bloody drama then I recommend Macbeth with no reservations whatsoever. On a scale of 1-5, I fell this book deserves a 4.5. Written by the greatest literary figure of all time, Shakespeare mesmorizes the reader with suspense and irony. The Scottish Thane Macbeth is approachd by three witches who attempt and succeed at paying with his head. They tell him he will become king, which he does, alog with the aide of his ambitious wife. Macbeth's honor and integrity is destroyed with the deceit and murders he commits. As the novel progresses, Macbeth's conscience tortures him and makes him weak minded. Clearly the saying "what goes around comes around," is put to use since Macbeth's doom was similar to how he acquired his status of kingship. He kills Duncan, the king of Scottland and chops the head off the Thane of Cawdor, therefore the Thane of Fife, Macduff, does the same thing to him. I feel anyone who decides to read this extraordinary book will not be disatisfied and find himself to become an audience to Shakespearean tragedies.

Noble Macbeth and the story of his decay due to the seduction of the forces of darkness - I liked it. The play sets off with an impressing scene, the chant of the three witches, a perfect use of language, I dare say. It takes only about a page and I knew it by memory after two times reading. We used to quote it during the breaks, and actually still do so sometimes. "When shall we three meet again...and so forth. After this promising start the language gets quite hard (I'm not any native form Enland, the US or any other english speaking part of this planet). One can follow the action though and every five or six pages there's a reward for your patience, at least for anybody who likes the power Shakespeare's language is able to display in their good or best moments: "Have we eaten on the insane root?" and the likes. Of course there's also the famous "It is a tale, told by an idiot...". It's for these moments, where Williams knew how to transfere a feeling of one of his caracteres into the realm of a universal significance, that I enjoyed the play...

Shakespeare's shortest and bloodiest tragedy, MACBETH is also possibly the most serious. Macbeth is a warrior who has just had his greatest victory, but his own "vaulting ambition," the spectral promises of the three weird sisters, and the spurring on of his wife drive him to a treason and miserable destruction for which he himself is completely responsible. The ominous imagery of the fog that hovers over the first scene of the play symbolizes the entire setting of the play. Shakespeare's repeated contrasts of such concepts as fair and foul, light and darkness, bravery and cowardice, cut us to the quick at every turn. MACBETH forces us to question "what is natural?" "what is honor?" and "Is life really 'a tale/ Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury/ Signifying nothing?'" Few plays have ever illustrated the torments of Guilt (especially how it deprives one of Sleep) so vividly and stirringly.

I have read this play curiously as a child, excitedly as a teenager, passionately as a college student, and lovingly as a graduate student and adult. Like all of Shakespeare's writing, it is still as fresh, and foreboding, and marvelous as ever. As a play it is first meant to be heard (cf. Hamlet says "we shall hear a play"), secondarily to be seen (which it must be), but, ah, the rich rewards of reading it at one's own pace are hard to surpass. Shakespeare is far more than just an entertainer: he is the supreme artist of the English language. The Arden edition of MACBETH is an excellent scholarly presentation, offering a bounty of helpful notes and information for both the serious and casual reader.

This novel is considered by most to be one of the great novels of the 20th Century, and its author to be one of the greatest authors of all time; there are undoubtedly reasons for this. Yet, Hemmingway is also considered to be a "love him" or "hate him" type. I tend toward the former, though he isn't one of my personal favorites.

The plot of this novel is relatively straightforward. American Robert Jordan, a member of the International Brigades fighting with the Republicans against the Fascists during the Spanish Civil War, is given the task of blowing up a bridge to prevent the Fascists from bringing up reinforcements to repel a Republican offensive. But while the plot is uncomplicated, the depth and breadth of Hemmingway's story telling are not. There are layers and layers of emotion, passion, and personal pain. You are transported to the mountains of Spain with Jordan and a band of Spanish guerilla fighters. The characters are so incredibly real, that you feel as though you could find their names in a history book. For those who have never read Hemmingway, I'd say give it a try.

This novel certainly deserves its billing as a "classic." The action takes place during the Spanish Civil War (of the 1930's), and the story follows a group of guerilla loyalists, who are fighting against Franco's fascist forces in the name of the Republic.

The entire novel only covers a span of three days, so the reader truly gets a sense of the time passing. Because of this, it feels as if the events are actually occurring as one is reading. Each moment is important, and there are few discontinuities in the story. Also, the novel is written in an interesting format where the climax doesn't occur until the final pages-this adds quite a bit of suspense. What really makes this book so excellent is the delicate combination of action and lull, and love and hate, which Hemingway builds into the story. There is a very beautiful (if only slightly unrealistic) love story carefully interwoven with murder, conspiracy, and disaster.

It is impossible not to deeply care for each individual in the story because there are few characters, and they are all extremely well developed. The reader can find a piece of somebody that he/she knows in every character. Hemingway also deals effectively with emotion. It is always easy to understand exactly what each person is feeling. With Robert Jordan, specifically, Hemingway uses a unique series of monologue-type passages so that the reader really can "get inside" Jordan's head. Somehow, Hemingway manages to do this while keeping out that uneasiness one gets when reading a play monologue. The novel has an anti-war feel to it, but it still contains several enthralling battle scenes. If only the love story were a bit more believable, this book could be truly fantastic. "For Whom The Bell Tolls" is definitely a worthwhile read right from the opening quote by John Donne all the way to the very last page.

"For Whom the Bell Tolls" was the first Hemingway I ever read. I was a high school kid in the early 1970s, working on my campus newspaper, newly graduated from Jack London but not yet ready for Jack Kerouac.

To my young eyes, it was a good action story: Robert Jordan, the passionate American teacher joins a band of armed gypsies in the Spanish Civil War. He believes one man can make a difference. The whole novel covers just 68 hours, during which Jordan must find a way to blow up a key bridge behind enemy lines. In that short time, Jordan also falls in love with Maria, a beautiful Spanish woman who has been raped by enemy soldiers. The whole spectrum of literature was refracted through the prism of my youth: Good guys and bad guys, sex and blood, life and death. For me, just a boy, the journey from abstraction to clarity was only just beginning.

Re-reading "For Whom the Bell Tolls" at 42 (roughly the age Hemingway was when he published it), I have lost my ability to see things clearly in black and white. My vision is blurred by irony, as I note that two enemies, the moral killer Anselmo and the sympathetic fascist Lieutenant Berrendo, utter the very same prayer. For the first time, I see that the book opens with Robert Jordan lying on the "pine-needled floor of the forest" and closes as he feels his heart pounding against the "pine needle floor of the forest"; Jordan ends as he begins, perhaps having never really moved. I certainly could never have seen at 16 how dying well might be more consequential than living well. And somehow the light has changed in the past 26 years, so that I now truly understand how the earth can move.

As a teen, I missed another crucial element, even though Vietnam was still a seeping wound. Three pivotal days in Jordan's life force him to question his own role in a futile war. He wonders if dying for a political cause might be too wasteful, but he ultimately believes that dying to save another individual is a man's most heroic act.

The book's title is taken from John Donne's celebrated poem: "No man is an Iland ... and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee." It was not about loneliness and aloneness, as I once had thought, but about the seamless fabric of all life: What happens to one happens to all.

I am not blind to Hemingway's flaws. He was a good short writer, and what was short was almost always better. Pilar's tale on the mountainside has been widely acclaimed as the most powerful of Hemingway's prose. Her story within a story is nothing less than a contemporary myth.

"For Whom the Bell Tolls" has also been regarded as Hemingway's capitulation to critics who barked that his innovative style was too lean, and as a consciously commercial exercise for which Hollywood might (and did) pay handsomely. Robert Jordan, in so many respects, was a tragic mythical hero in the vein of Achilles, Gawain and Samson. "For Whom the Bell Tolls" ranks as one of the great American war novels in a country that has always struggled with the concept of good and bad wars.

Native Son is a very deep book that explores the race relations (or lack of them) in Chicago in the 1940s. A black twenty-year old named Bigger Thomas accidentally kills a prominent white woman and then tries to cover it up. Wright goes deeply into the feelings of Bigger, mostly in regard to his attitude toward the whites. Bigger has been so oppressed by the whites that his major feelings are hate and fear. Native Son really made me think about how hard it was for blacks back then and, to some extent, even now. The book is very depressing to read because Bigger is such a sad character. He has no options in life, so after his accidental murder, he's almost happy because now something is happening to him. He's finally the center of attention, and he matters in the world. The parts where he covers up the murder, the reporters find the dead girl, and the police's chase of him through the streets and apartments of Chicago are very exciting. However, the rest of the book focuses mainly on Bigger's emotions, and gets a little boring. The best part about the book is how the author, speaking through Bigger's lawyer, explains how the oppression of blacks has made all blacks hate and fear whites, forcing Bigger to murder. This attitude is much different than the one expressed in To Kill A Mockingbird, by Harper Lee. While that book has a hopeful outlook on race relations, Native Son has a much more negative viewpoint. Wright feels that the oppression and dehumanization of blacks has made it so that blacks and whites will never treat each other as they would members of their own race. I recommend this book to anyone looking for a long book that isn't easy to read but really makes one think.

Native Son is an excellent book that is quite deep on many levels. Richard Wright does an incredibly nice job of developing his main character, Bigger Thomas.

Bigger is a twenty year-old poor black man hired by a wealthy white family, and then accidentally kills the prominent young daughter out of fear. In covering up her death, he allows his emotions to get the better of him, and he rapes and kills another girl.

The first two sections of the book are loaded with intrigue, suspense, and drama, as the reader is right there with Bigger as he tries to mislead the murder investigation, and then runs from the large angry masses once his cover-up is foiled. The third section allows you to get into Bigger's mind and feel his confused emotions. Here, the reader is treated to Wright's views on society mainly through the voice of Bigger's trial attorney.

The language in the book is easy-flowing, and not terribly descriptive, which was done intentionally, so the reader could read between the lines and make clear assumptions. All in all, the novel was quite entertaining and rather eye-opening.

In Native Son, Richard Wright uses motifs and symbolism to portray violence and to show how Bigger Thomas, the main character, represents the black struggle. Wright's depiction of the oppression that blacks experienced in the 1930's is not to characterize whites as racist or as villains. It is simply trying to show the graveness of the conditions that were then present. First, Wright divides the book into three sections: fear, flight, and fate. Book One introduces the first motif of fear. This is the foundation of Bigger's struggle, because he must overcome fear to prove himself. He and many others in his society fear white people. This is shown by how they are quick to burglarize fellow blacks, but will not dare rob a white man. Also, Through Bigger's fear, he tries to display a hard exterior so that people can not see his weaknesses. He can not "be swept out of himself with fear and despair" (9). He has to maintain an "attitude of iron reserve" (9). Therefore, the only way that he knows how to be hard is through violence. This violence takes the form of mean acts towards family and friends, burglary, and murder. The first action of the story is the ringing of an alarm clock. This is the beginning of the time motif. This element of time is frequent throughout the novel. It draws the reader's attention and signals a warning or foreshadowing. Most importantly, it represents the time Bigger has left to live. From this first Brrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiing, Bigger's life is counting down. The story ends with a ring just as it begins with a ring. As the book closes, Bigger "hears the ring of steel against steel as a far door clanged shut" (359). Early in the novel Bigger kills a rat in his family's one-bedroom apartment. This scene is important because it provides an in-depth view of the conditions that Wright illustrates. The one-room apartment and the rat, which threatens the Thomas family, symbolize poverty. As Bigger fights and kills the rat, his family members are overcome with violence. The rat is hungry, and therefore, attacks the family. Bigger retaliates with violence as well. This struggle parallels Bigger's struggle with humanity. Going deeper, this symbolizes the black struggle. The rat's death introduces the motif of death. Book Two: Flight suggests Bigger's attempt to escape the consequences of his crime. This action is a result of fear. As he flees he resorts to violence because he is somewhat disillusioned. In Book Two: Fate, his violence catches up to him and he must face his fate. Fate represents the motif of death. In this section, Wright uses the character of Max to show the aid that is given to disadvantaged blacks. Max is a communist, like Richard Wright, and he tries to help Bigger even though he himself is white. Wright uses this element because he believed that communism was the solution to the black problem. Furthermore, Bigger's outcome is meant to show how society treats troubled people who cry out for help. It combines with the scenes describing black and white burglaries to address the injustices of African-Americans during this era. These elements show how a person is pursued and brought to justice for a crime against a white person, but not for the same crime against a black person. In conclusion, Bigger Thomas reaches his ultimate goal in the end. Despite his fate, he is able to define his life. Bigger's achievement shows how black's must overcome all adversities to emerge from social bondage to define their lives and their equality.