Fiction Literature Books

This book begins a little fuzzy, but by the end of the first few pages the explanation for the boys' current situation is revealed: A plane carrying many British schoolboys crashed on a tropical island, and only some amount of them survive. There are no adults. Sounds like your typical survival-on-a-desert-island beginning, right?

In a way, it is. For the most part, this book details the boys' struggle to survive under the leadership of Ralph and his intelligent friend Piggy. Ralph attempts to lead the boys under a sort of democratic establishment, and it works, for a while. But the "model boy" of the school, Jack Merridrew, gains a crazed obsession with hunting. Soon his target becomes a "Beast" of the island and, aided by his fellow hunters, begins committing criminal acts such as beatings, robbery, and murder in an attempt to "kill the beast". The boys desert Ralph and Piggy and join Jack's society of madness, believing in the misguided leadership of Jack. However, all that's well ends well, as all the boys are eventually rescued. That's the end of the story, right?

Wrong. The true meaning of the book is much, much deeper than that. What you thought was an island adventure is revealed to be an insightful look into the reasons why men do what they do, why certain societies fail, how fear and darkness penetrates man, and what humans do when they are desperate. It also explores the boundary between human reason and animal instinct, all on the brutal playing field of adolescent competition.

This book will appeal to adventure-seekers and philosophers alike. It is gripping enough to hold your attention and fascinating enough that you will still recall it months later.

"Lord of the Flies" is Golding's fascinating novelistic expression of the theory that human beings are born violent savages, requiring adult supervision and training to moderate and tame. I find "Lord of the Flies" excellent both artistically and conceptually because, in part, because I am in agreement with Golding.

In the story, children marooned on an island, without adults, quickly revert to the savagery from which they sprang. One group even develops a crude religion to explain things they cannot see and to justify their use of brutal power. Some of the children are more 'civilized' and it is through their eyes that we regard the reversion of others with an equal measure of alarm and distaste. The young savages hunt, stage wild parties and make offerings of pig's heads to their newfound God. They finally murder. It is only with the arrival of adults that total chaos is prevented.

Ron Braithwaite--author of novels--"Skull Rack" and "Hummingbird God"--on the Spanish Conquest of Mexico

This is a great book to read! Very interesting and intense. Great reading material.

OK now that I have the conch I have a few things I'd like to say about this book. First if you don't know what the conch is all about then you'd better pick up this book and read it. Secondly if you think you know who the Lord of Flies might be without reading this book your wrong. Third and lastly do yourself a favor anyway and pick up this book, it's a fun, quick read. I liked this story of young boys stranded on a island having to fend for themselves and at the same time trying to keep some sort of organization among themselves as they wait for a possible rescue. But therein lies the problem as their little world begins to turn up-side down as different personalities begin to clash. I felt as though I too was on the island with these kids as I read along. I've said enough now, who wants the conch now?

What an incredible first novel, a story of civilization, how humans create it and how easily it can be destroyed. It deals with fear, and the atrocities it can make people commit. Golding wrote often about the connection between humanity and civilization. Does civilization make us human? This story can mean many things to many people, making it wonderful fodder for literature classes and idle pondering.

I got this as a gift. It is a precious story of a child resisting falling asleep to no avail.

My son loves this book so much that he doesnt just want me to read it at night.. he wants me to read it a million times in the day too! my 19 month old loves pointing out all the objects on the page that we are saying good night to. The worlds are flowy.. the pictures are perfect and it keeps him interested from the first page to the last. A toddlers bookshelf is incomplete without this book!

Was as advertised but did not meet my expectations. Maybe it will grow on me after some family use.

I got the book for my 4 yr old and 2 yr old - but neither of them like it much. My husband and I don't like reading it either, and here's why:

The text is quite disjoint, like bits and pieces of other fairy tales and nursery rhymes put together. It seems like the author has just put down random things together - there's no rhyme (literally!) or reason for any of the pages. It does not flow lyrically.

The only interesting aspect is the black and white illustrations on some of the pages. This offers a striking contrast to the color illustrations. However, the whole book has not been put together well, and the quality of illustrations is just so-so. So the impact of the b&w is also pointless.

Compared to other wonderful books like the "Hungry Caterpillar" or "Ten Little Lady Bugs" or "The Firefly's First Flight" which we all really love, this book definitely is not worth having in the childrens' bookshelf.

I seem to be among the minority in disliking this book on Amazon - perhaps I am not seeing something that others are.. But hey! this is truly my opinion!

Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R177YYDVCG1WGD Cullen of CullensAbcs.com reviews this book and gives you ideas on how to interactively use the book with children. For more video book reviews, free children videos and activity idea videos for you visit the CullensAbcs.com website. At Facebook you can add Cullen Wood as a friend and become a FAN of Cullen's Abc's.

"The Invisible Man" is a classic novel which uses the first person narrator, the invisible man, to move the reader through various types of racism, dishonesty, and deceptiveness which a black man in the 1950's would encounter. The more the invisible man is used by others, the more invisible he becomes and the less self-identity he possesses. He allows himself, unwittingly, to be used by others, both black and white, for their own purposes. He gains nothing from dealing with these characters and actually loses more and more of his self-worth, thus creating his invisibility as a person. It is only when he begins to realize that he must define his own self-worth and not allow others to dictate to him or define his identity that his "invisibility" begins to diminish. The idea that "white is right, white has might", symbolized by the paint factory, was the ideology of those times. Segregation was practiced and blacks were looked down upon as ignorant, nameless members of the American culture. They were invisible citizens in a white-dominated culture. The author wanted to send the message to readers that America was founded upon the philosophy of individual freedom in all areas and that nothing was gained by forcing people to conform to society's standards. By conforming, individual identity is lost and invisibility as a person increases. "I am not invisible that nobody can see me. I am invisible because they choose not to see me." That was the truth the invisible man finally learned. From that truth, he was able to begin defining his own identity and not be the invisible man in his own eyes.

This novel is a classic and a must read for any one, especially any American, of any color, race, or religion. Although it was written several decades ago, much of it still applies today.

Invisible Man / 0-679-73276-4

Ellison's master work is breathtaking, indescribable, and completely unique. This long and careful allegory of the young black man making his way through the white world is filled with passages so crammed with myth and meaning that the closest comparison I can make is to Rushdie's carefully disjointed Satanic Verses.

Simple incidents, such as Mr. Norton's introduction to Jim Trueblood are complex and fascinating. Trueblood has accidentally (or so he claims, - can we believe his impossible dream?) impregnated his own daughter, and now his daughter and wife are both pregnant at once. The lurid incident has resulted in Trueblood becoming a cause celebre for the white community - they hang on the lurid details, lap up the story again and again with prurient interest, and hold him up as justification for the doctrine of black inferiority.

Yet Mr. Norton's reaction to all this is a sort of disbelieving panic. He begs Trueblood to know why he is celebrated for this terrible thing, when others would be shunned. He takes great pity on the man, giving him monetary compensation for the horrible 'ordeal' he has been through. But something does not sit right, and Mr. Norton's interest seems very personal. He has mentioned that he had a daughter, and that something terrible had occurred to her. And we know that child molestation is not confined to the poor. Is it possible that...? And is Ellison suggesting that what a rich white man may hide, a poor black man cannot? Can we consider that what a rich white woman may chose to overlook, a poor black woman may not (as she has less money and social standing to 'lose' over the scandal)? Dare we wonder that a rich white girl can be sent away for private 'school' to bear a child in secret or get an abortion, when a poor black girl has only the option to shoulder on through the pregnancy?

It is the power of Invisible Man that these, and many other questions, are never answered - indeed, they are never even explicitly raised. But the nuanced narrative nudges them into our minds and, once there, we cannot let go of them.

This is book is far to good to be filed in one category, and unfortunately categorization is probably hurting the range of it's audience. What we have here is a great tome of African American literature to be sure, but the work far transends ethnicities in the importance of it's message and the social commentary found within. Granted it is about a young African American male trying to gain recognician as a man, if nothing else, in a society where identity [...] merely a fascade for social and professional purposes. This book is as well written and more developed than many of the existentialist literature spoon fed to us in school. I have to admit I felt a bit cheated that I stumbled on this book accidentally in the Black History section of a book store, sandwiched between Douglas and King.
Anyone who has opted to form their own opinions and maintain the integrity of their own values will find this a very satisfying read.

This novel seems to be just one big blurb that is trying to be expressed by as many words as possible. Things that could be summed up in a few words can take pages and pages to dictate. This makes the presentation awfully muddy and hard to follow.

At one point he's boxing , part of an explosion at a paint factory, has a lobotomy performed on himself, and so on and so forth to more ridiculous events that build on one another. This book just lacked any flow or pace since the events became even more outrageous, jumped around from one thing to the next, then used 10 pages too many to describe each event.

These flaws prevented me from realizing the themes the author was trying to cultivate. It seems that he wanted to make a book that encapsulated every walk of African-American life during this time period: college educated, field workers, those still under control of slavery, those under command of the whites, those in unions, those who work, those in Harlem, those in cities, those who are homeless, those who are crazy, those in organizations, those in the South. No wonder such a mountainous project did not come out coherently; the scope of it was too large to dictate successfully.

I knew absolutely nothing about Ayn Rand when I won a copy of this book in a review competition, and thought it was wonderfully ironic that the first novel I had 'chosen' to read since 1990 turned out to be a 1,168 page long philosophical treatise. Divine retribution, indeed, for having inflicted a 1,014 page novel on the public myself.

However, despite having lost the patience with novels years ago, I had taken this one on with the promise to review - and review I would, and no skimming bits either!
Atlas Shrugged is a simple story. For all its supposed breadth of scope and 'epic' qualities its essence can be boiled down to very little.

Indeed there is something strange about the fact that although it discusses (at great length) supposedly large philosophical issues, and sets itself in a curiously dated industrial 1950's America, it feels rather like someone trying to expand a very narrow range of experience into the semblance of something more 'deep'.

Ayn Rand can write, and it seems a great tragedy that she bogs down her obvious talent in a great mishmash of half-baked teenage notions repeated ad nauseam, as if in repetition they will somehow gain credibility.

She writes her 'philosophy' exactly like a fourteen year-old at the debating society: Is Capitalism a Force For Good or Evil?

Ayn believes it's good. It's good because capitalists build stuff, because competition encourages even better stuff, and because steel smelting plants look great at night.
Ayn believes industrialists are sexy. They are muscular, lean, tanned, have aquiline profiles, look good in dinner suits and are very confident.

You can tell she never met Richard Branson.

In fact, Ayn hasn't really conceived of men like Richard Branson - undoubtedly hardworking, competitive, indeed everything that Ayn expects 'great creators' to be, but missing the fact that now, a mere 50 years later, these men don't really create or build anything.

Ayn's 'great' philosophy didn't even make a hundred years before it went out of date. Her notions of how business works are frighteningly naïve and her determination to batter you to death with crudely-handled polemics reduces her scintillating poetic descriptions into The Collected Speeches of Senator McCarthy.

Atlas Shrugged may be considered a 'classic', but for me it will remain only a classic of How Not to Write a Novel, and a testament to how bad experiences in a communist regime do not necessarily make you very astute, let alone a 'philosopher'.

This novel is incredibly long, but the finest peace of literature I have ever read, and I have read many. This story is an intriguing tale that somehow relates to reality in a way that can clarify what seems to be so very wrong with society. This lady was an incredible writer. Even thought the entertainment value of this story made it worth the time, I can honestly say that it changed me and got me think about things I had never thought of before. It changed me for the better.

There is something solid about a book where the story echoes in reality fifty years after it was written. It amazes me how I can see the story of Atlas Shrugged play out in today's world again and again with different characters filling the roles. In this book Ayn Rand has captured many of the truths of our world, many realities about the personalities that inhabit it and many unspoken rules about the way we interact. This book celebrates individual accomplishment and those who change the world through sheer personal will power.

In regard to some of the comments I have read - this book is not by any means conservative leaning, especially in today's political environment. It actually attacks both political ideologies of the major political parties here in the United States. If you didn't catch that then you really weren't reading close enough.

The book is very wordy and the ending isn't as moving as most of the book is. However, it is a great read for anyone regardless of ideology. Every person who thinks themselves open-minded should read this book. Afterward you will think twice about the laws that we have put in place.

Atlas Shrugged is definitely a classic and one of my favorite books, although very wordy. Few readers I have known have agreed with every part of objectivism but Atlas Shrugged has in at least some small way affected the way they look at life.

The importance of this book rests in two areas. First, on a base level, are the characters. There is a clear divide between most of the life-affirming and destructive characters in the book: People like Dagny Taggart, Hank Rearden, Eddie Willers, and others on one side and sneaky characters like Jim Taggart, Dr. Ferris, and Orren Boyle on the other. They anchor the book. However, what makes the character list more interesting are those who you don't truly know on which side they will go, such as Dr. Stadler, Cheryl, and the "Wet Nurse." These are the most interesting to watch because they fall the most in the middle of character development, influenced heavily by both their attitudes and the worlds in which they live. For example, Stadler seems to want to be happy (as in watching the billy goat), but believes his course is stuck in one way and can't be changed (as seen with Project X).

More importantly, the philosophy divulged in the book is what makes it work. It's a book where the idea seems to be in existence and leaves it for the characters to discover or ignore, instead of the characters creating the ideas themselves. Thus, a good portion of the book is taken up with philosophical discussions and monologues. They can be a bit long, but they are very detailed and interesting to read. If there is anything on the philosophy with which I disagree, it's the route Rand takes to describe it. We should work for our own happiness, but I think that all lives are equal , and that the argument should have rested more on doing what makes our lives and the ones of those we love better. She makes allusions to this at times (most notably, in the discussion between Hank Rearden and Francisco D'Anconia at the steel mills), but I wish there had been more.

I have two issues. One is the descriptions she gives when discussing characters, especially in the romantic scenes. I hade heard about the forcefulness of the sex scenes, and I was a bit startled by it. I also believe that the language tends to read like a Fabio-like romance novel in its description in these sections. Also, Ayn Rand can be a bit preachy in discussing her beliefs. I stated earlier the thoroughness of the philosophical discussion, but there are times when she goes into overkill; the long monologue near the end of the novel (about 60 pages in this version) is a good example.

However, it is an engrossing novel and a very influential one. Every time I have read it (whether I agreed with sections or not), I feel invigorated and want to do something immediately afterwards. The influence comes from giving one the confidence and comfort to not be afraid to experience (as she states it) "the joy of existence" and not be afraid to succeed.

Yes, Atlas Shrugged is pretty much a manifesto/dogma dressed up as story, kind of like the Bible. And yes, Ayn Rand's prose is a bit wordy and repetitive, like the Bible or the Koran, but the story at the heart of this quasi-religious cum philosophical work is interesting and entertaining. Unfortunately, Rand's lack of editing and pacing and poor characterization not only bog the book down in unneeded pages and plot development, but also get in the way of telling a good story.

As for philosophy, Rand's Objectivism has some good ideas, but its fundamentalism and extremism cannot be taken to encompass all of life. For one thing, I find it hard to believe that no one procreates in Ayn Rand's novels, except for one character and a minor one at that. Maybe if Rand had been a mother to anyone, she would have had a more balanced outlook on a moral capitalism that can be used and looked up to as a way of life instead of what she presents in this novel.

As with anything, take what is good from her system and toss out the rest that does not work.

I think altruism has its place, but not to the point that it violates the rights of another individual.

I feel that love does not have to be so dramatic and either stifling and indifferent or so violent and masochistic as it is in Rand's novels.

Everything is never as clear cut as it is in Ayn Rand's world, which makes her objectivism a flawed philosophy, just as Atlas Shrugged is a flawed piece of work.

"All Quiet on the Western Front" is a well-known work throughout the western world. "Bloom's Guides: All Quiet on the Western Front" is a complete and comprehensive book on the book. Exploring Remarque's work, looking at the roots and meanings scattered throughout that may not be obvious to a simple reader, it is also enhanced with a collection of critical essays discussing the work's impact on the world of literature and the world in general. This Bloom's Guide to a literary classic is a must for any student or non-specialist general reader wanting better understand the nuances, historical references, character insights, and writing style that created "All Quiet on the Western Front."

Thank you for your timely shipping. This book was for a reading assignment, and it was a great book. I did not really want to read it, but it was an exciting and very informative book. I enjoyed it so much I got an A+ on my report!!!

The book came wrapped in cardboard and tape, but nothing was damaged. Great buy! Awesome book, very intense and graphic. I had to read it for an AP European History class.

This old book of 296 pages, first published in 1928 in German, is often considered the "greatest war novel of all time," and it is almost unbearable to read. Who knows if it is "the best?" That's immaterial and moot. There is no glory here, no swashbuckling heroism, and no adulation of the honor of dying for no discernible reason. It is simply a plain, gorgeous story about the awfulness of war.

A young German, Paul, age 20, serving in the army, is the narrator, his story told in first person. He and his buddies, as the war claims them one by one, endure 3 years of World War I trench warfare on the French-German lines. They knit themselves into a fierce family of unlikely comrades. They love one another desperately and despair that when the war is over, they will not know what to do with themselves. They only know death, killing and horror.

Blood, death, despair, inhuman conditions, and frailty abound. Lice and rancid food characterize their daily life. Fear, grief and compassion fill their hearts. Paul nearly loses his mind when he has to kill a Frenchman, a guy with a wife and child at home, and then has to endure a couple of nights with him in his shell-hole. He apologies to the body and begs it for forgiveness.

Page 115, "The brown earth, the torn, blasted earth, with a greasy shine under the sun's rays; the earth is the background of this restless, gloomy world of automatons, our gasping is the scratching of a quill, our lips are dry, our heads are debauched with stupor - thus we stagger forward, and into our pierced and shattered souls bores the torturing image of the brown earth with the greasy sun and the convulsed and dead soldiers."

Paul's first home leave is beyond painful. It humiliates and degrades. The reader cringes and shies away from the pages of Paul's visit to his home village and family. The psychological toll of war on everyone overwhelms. Paul's hospital stay after being wounded, is a ghastly indictment of all who wage war and even of those who try to help the injured.

While welcome and very funny, the occasional army style bad-boy antics and the ever-present gallows humor are the things that keep the men sane - or does it? They distract themselves to distraction.

The prose is Hemingway-like in its terse, simple-sentence style. Sometimes the translation suffers from its own tell-tale German "accent." In all, the writing is irredeemably blunt and yet does not offend.

Remarque speaks to us through Paul, and he speaks for all of us. Like the movie "Gallipoli," which is the best anti-war movie I've ever seen, this book is the one of the best anti-war statements in print.

"All Quite on the Western Front" is terribly difficult to read. It is grisly and graphic. But read it we must.

I grew up playing war like every other kid and had a somewhat glamorized view of war. When we went to war in Iraq for the first time I thought it was kind of cool. Being a Jewish person who lost a great deal of their family in the Holocaust having any sympathy for any Germans was not an easy thing to believe I could ever feel. This book floored me,the absolute horror of war just rippled through me for the first time in my life. What a callous maniac you have to be to start a war, declaring one is the ultimate sacrifice you can ask of people and should be under extreme circumstances only. This book is a must read, well written and engrossing. Enjoy reading it, if that's the appropriate term.

This classic play by Arthur Miller (1915-2005) examines human failure, high expectations, and the dark side of the American Dream. Willie Loman is an aging salesman whose figures have fallen to the point where he no longer makes a real living. Not only is his job in jeopardy; so is his family and self-worth. Loman reacts by deluding himself, living in the past, and by holding his sons to unrealistic expectations. Miller does a superb job in presenting a broken man sliding downwards. Such occurs in the sordid race of materialism and corporate success - one that leaves many broken souls in its path. Willie needs to face reality, and mend himself and his struggling family (and his family should help him too), but Miller's powerful script doesn't go there. Instead we have a deluded, beaten man sliding into mental illness - and worse.

Miller penned this play in 1949, as the USA was moving into postwar changes and a more suburbanized, corporate society. This play about the brutish world of expectations, materialism, and the illusive American dream is as much on target today as in 1949.

Summary:

"Death of a Salesman" is a play by Arthur Miller about an aging man named Willy Loman and his broken dreams. Willy is in his sixties, and had just been demoted from his once fruitful job as a traveling salesman. Because of his growing depression and his frequent car accidents, he had his salary taken away, and has been put on commission.
Throughout the play, Willy recalls his life in a series of flashbacks, while we see what he has become in the present. He went from having an illustrious career where everyone loved him and he brought home a large salary, to a depressing home life and earning money off the occasional sale. His two sons Biff and Happy, were once successful athletes. Now Biff is 34 years old with no job and no high school diploma. Happy appears to be following in his fathers footsteps, making many of the same mistakes that he did. Willy can't stand to be around his wife, Linda, anymore because of his overwhelming guilt over an extramarital affair that happened several decades ago, that his son found out about.
Near the end of the play, Willy fantasizes that he is talking to his dead brother Ben, who had been an inspiration to him since he struck it rich in Alaska. Willy attempts suicide several times, once by hooking an exhaust pipe to the gas heater, and several times by purposefully driving recklessly.
When he tries to get his original job back, he gets fired by a man young enough to be his son. He tells this man, Howard Wagner, how he expected his life to turn out, and how he was let down:

"...Oh, yeah, my father lived many years in Alaska. He was an adventurous man. We've got quite a little streak of self-reliance in our family. I thought I'd go out with my older brother and try to locate him, and maybe settle in the North with the old man. And I was almost decided to go, when I met a salesman in the Parker House. His name was Dave Singleman. And he was eighty-four years old, and he'd drummed merchandise in thirty-one states. And old Dave, he'd go up to his room, y'understand, put on his green velvet slippers - I'll never forget - and pick up his phone and call the buyers, and without ever leaving his room, at the age of eighty-four, he made his living. And when I saw that, I realized that selling was the greatest career a man could want. `Cause what could be more satisfying than to be able to go, at the age of eighty-four, into twenty or thirty different cities, and pick up a phone, and be remembered and loved and helped by so many different people? Do you know? When he died - and by the way, he died the death of a salesman, in his green velvet slippers in the smoker of the New York, New Haven and Hartford, going into Boston - when he dies, hundreds of salesmen and buyers were at his funeral. Things were sad on a lotta trains for months after that. In those days there was personality in it, Howard. There was respect, and comradeship, and gratitude in it. Today, it's all cut and dried, and there's no chance for bringing friendship to bear - or personality. You see what I mean? They don't know me any more."

Later, he finds out that his son, Biff, doesn't get the job he was counting on. After a failed attempt to plant a vegetable garden, he decides that he couldn't live anymore and drives his car off a bridge.

My rating: 4/5

Commentary:

This was a good book. It had good character development and an intriguing plot. However, since I wasn't seeing the actual play, it was hard to tell what happened in some of the scenes. Anyone who likes period pieces will probably want to read this.

"Death of a Salesman" is a modern American tragedy. Yet, it can apply equally to any society where individuals become self-obsessed, lose touch with the bigger picture and allow themselves to be deluded by dreams of riches whilst ignoring the beauty of the day to day world.

Poor Willy Loman is a very sad figure. He wallows in the past. He has grandiose dreams about himself and his two adult sons, Happy and Biff. But these dreams are not rooted in any reality. Quite simply, Willy is lost and lonely.

Arthur Miller's play is a masterpiece. Few other 20th century playwrights have been able to surgically dissect society so well. Miller's work is not for those seeking a happy ending where everything is resolved and the characters happily fade away. No, this work is brutal in comparison. Willy Loman is an anti-hero. He is hard to like. He is, however, worthy of our pity. His life, at least through his own eyes, is one of failure. But, in reality, Willy is no failure. He is simply deluded. He has swallowed the American dream to the point where its goals merely impoverish him. The dream, any dream, is what you make of it and should not be imposed upon the individual. Willy allows the dream to ruin his life. Willy is the ultimate tragic.

Many deem "Death of a Salesman" to be a critique of American society. This is unfair. Miller's work is the précis of a tragic life. Willy is that tragedy. To dream is magnificent. To allow a dream to dominate your very existence is a disaster.

I wasn't terribly impressed with "Death of a Salesman" while I read it. The play simply didn't live up to its acclaim, its noble status in American literature. I've heard Salesman referenced countless times over my life, all 22 years of it. Salesman was written in 1949, a post-war era that supported the belief that starting anew was possible and wishes do come true. My first impression of the play was that it attempted to shatter the ubiquitous belief of an American dream, making it merely a quixotic fantasy. But after rereading certain passages and thinking about it for this review, I saw how very human its message is and how it is actually an incredibly despairing masterpiece that throws a new light at the idea behind the American dream. Through the utterly destroyed and distraught protagonist, Willy Loman, Miller represents the demise of the American dream and suggests the need to reassess such a unrealistic dream.

Loman is a revised, twentieth-century version of the classic tragic character. He does not display the typical chivalrous characteristics that many literary tragic characters do, such as Beowulf and Oedipus Rex. Loman, in fact, is pathetic and repugnant. As an older aged, crazy, and impoverished character, Loman isn't close to the traditional heroic figure. He cheats on his wife; builds up impratical hopes for his two sons; and makes imprudent business and life decisions. Such characteristics are sinful and generally not seen in the traditional tragic literary figure. But these traits are also very real and humanistic. Miller deftly jumps from the present to the past and back again, slowly "peeling the onion" (as Grass would call it) of the true Loman. This peeling process reveals what went wrong and what should've been avoided to prevent this most tragic ending. It appears that Miller is suggesting that seemingly innocuous decisions can--and do--destroy the American dream.

Such a bleak perspective on the American dream shouldn't come as a surprise to the reader/viewer. The late 1940s was a period of transition: America was forced to adjust from the war-driven, ration crazed society to a very corporate-driven, forced-fed consumer culture. Post-war America was full of tenuous hopes to climb the corporate ladder and to acclimate to a life of plenty, i.e. family members and money. For an ordinary, hard-working American, like Loman, this proved to be too much. Despite the play having a backdrop in the 1920s and '30s, it takes place in the late '40s, in the very much consumer focused society. It is fitting that the land of plenty left Loman and his family with nothing.

The play is very much alive today as it was nearly sixty years ago. Do read it. I'm going to try to see the play the next time it comes to town.

Hopeless fathers & sons were a favorite theme of Miller. The pressure of failing aspirations. The horror of failure. Drawn between overconfidence and self-doubt. Flashbacks on scenes from a dreary life. Lies to others and oneself. Failures in job and family.
The play is one of the quintessential pieces of modern American theater. Its themes are known and have been expounded endlessly. Why is it still fresh? I have never watched it on stage nor screen. I have known it for ages, but could not find enough interest to look for a performance, nor to read it. Now LoA does it.
Looking at the reviews here on the Penguin modern classic page, I am wondering about the spread in reviews. From 5 to 1 stars all is there, with a downward slope towards the negative votes. The play has more friends than foes, but on an absolute level, the nays would sink an ordinary ship. Of course quality questions are not decided by democracy. One particularly daft observer produced a perfect inverted version of cultural Stalinism. With perfect perverted logic, he tells us that only positive depictions of the American dream are acceptable. That is completely in line with 'socialist realism': if the artist fails to enthuse about the reigning system, he is condemned.
Thanks to LoA for making me get to know the man Miller. I will definitely look for a movie version or go to a play if I find an opportunity.

Heller's classic is a surreal and sprawling story of immoral naivety and moral complexity. Ostensibly about the absurdity of World War II combat, Heller examines issues of group think and individual obligation with surprising philosophical clarity.

The Catch-22 that Yossarian, the erstwhile hero of our story, encounters maddeningly and repeatedly is any insoluble contradiction, expressed in his case in this infinite loop:

A. Yossarian realizes that continuing to fly combat missions is crazy because it puts his life at risk.

B. Therefore, he realizes he is crazy, and asks to be relieved and sent home because he is crazy.

C. Rejection of his claims by the Army doctors because the fact that Yossarian is aware that he is crazy for flying missions and is able to request to be relieved proves that he is sane, and therefore must continue to fly combat missions!

As stated succinctly in this exchange between Yossarian and Doc Daneeka:

"'So?' Yossarian was puzzled by Doc Daneeka's inability to comprehend. 'Don't you see what that means? Now you can take me off combat duty and send me home. They're not going to send a crazy man out to be killed, are they?'

'Who else will go?'" (p. 305 of this edition)

The contradiction, and Yossarian's persistent attempts to escape it, frames the absurdist humor that guides the book's organization. Physical comedy, ironic and witty verbal exchanges, fast-cut overlaps of scenes, characters, and forward- and backward-shifting time frames result in an existentialist masterpiece that belongs to every time and place.

But the theme of obligation drives a stubbornly-innocent Yossarian to a moral consistency that does mark him with a supremely heroic character:

"History did not demand Yossarian's premature demise, justice could be satisfied without it, progress did not hinge upon it, victory did not depend on it. That men would die was a matter of necessity; which men would die, though, was a matter of circumstance, and Yossarian was willing to be the victim of anything but circumstance." (p. 68 of this edition).

Like every hero, he makes the difficult and dangerous decisions his friends (and enemies) only wish they had the courage to make.

In the end, Yossarian faces his internal nightmares brought to life in a bizarre tramp through Rome after losing his closest friends and faces the difficult decision of denying his obligations to save his life, before learning that others have acted heroically in their own way and opened a way out of this absurdist trap.

Catch-22 will make you laugh, think, and feel good about being able to do all three.

This is the original (at least in terms of modern relevance) satire of modern warfare and decision making. However, it achieves a level of humour very rarely achieved elsewhere. It is a very personal book, and some of the personal touch, sidesplitting jokes, and very dark serious undercurrent make this resonate more with me than some of the other great "political / moral" satires - Animal Farm and 1984 after all can leave you feeling somewhat cold.

"Catch-22" remains one of my favorite novels of all time. Its cleverness, wit and insight never cease to amaze me. Having read Heller's novel countless times, I can honestly say that I find something new and surprising about it each time I pick it up. With that being said, I did notice some objection to it both from fellow reviewers and friends to whom I have suggested it. My only theory behind the stark contrast between people who love the book and people who do not understand it is that the rhythm of Heller's writing takes a little while to seep in. Behind the joke is a level of seriousness and behind the seriousness is another layer of satire. It is this layer that is often hard to access, but once one does the entire novel plays out as a macabre caricature of life. I can only suggest that the reader plod along for a long as possible, put it down for a while, pick it up again from the beginning but always keep going. The truth of "Catch-22" is worth discovering.

Why is this a so-called "classic"? Got me. I have no idea. Another reviewer said that you could skip chapters and not miss anything. I agree. I first attempted this novel a few years ago. I quit in less than 50 pages, so bored was I. I picked it up again recently, and I'm now less than 50 pages from finishing. What an unfulfilling reading experience this is. There is no central unifying theme or plot - other than that war is hell and the military rarely makes sense. But we knew that, right? As for the whole catch-22 business, sure, that is amusing the first twenty times, but it gets old quickly. This story could have been told in 50 pages and even that would have been too much.

Why then, if it is so bad, am I about to finish it? You know how it is. You start reading, and you become determined to complete it, just to say you did. There is no enjoyment in it though. I am looking forward to getting done so that I can read something else. My advice? Don't read this novel. Read the ingredients on food packages in your cupboard instead. You'll have more fun.

This book is so good, my weak attempt at a review is not going to do it justice. But I'll try.

I knew before I was half-way through that this is going to be a favorite and I plan to re-read it immediately. The writing is so fresh, the character studies so sharp, and the satire so relevant in today's increasingly bureaucratic (corporate) society, no wonder it was so hard for me to find a used copy. It's definitely a book I plan to hold onto and enjoy re-reading every year.

Anyone who's ever worked for a big corporation (like myself) can identify with Heller's hilarious and angry take on bureaucracy. Gen. Peckem's quote reads like a line from Dilbert or Office Space:

"Just pass the work I assign you along to somebody else and trust to luck. We call that delegation of responsibility. Somewhere down near the lowest level of this coordinated organization I run are people who do get the work done when it reaches them, and everything manages to run along smoothly without too much effort on my part."

It's sad how true that is in real life.

But this book is not all satire. It has a big heart. I often found myself laughing and crying at the same time. I can tell Heller cares deeply for his characters, even when he makes high comedy out of their sad fates (such as what happens to poor Doc Daneeka). He's brutally honest about the horrors of war, and laces them with enough humanity to really break your heart. It all makes the climatic "miracle" that much more satisfying. It's a satire that ends with a message of hope. And I like that.

Many people call this book ant-war, but I don't think it is. It really comes down to the last conversation btw. Yossarian and Danby. The ideals of war can be good - who can argue against rescuing Western Europe from Nazi domination. But it's the method of war - and all the evils that go with it - that makes no sense. Are these evils worth the ideals? It's a catch-22. And it's a dilemma that applies to life in general, not just to war.

I bought this book for my eight year old daughter who has always been very emotional. She loves it. It has really helped her to understand why she feels the way she does sometimes. Thanks.

This was quite helpful and informative for a book aimed at preteens, yet highly accessible and understandful. It offers great tips and advice, especially on dealing with feelings and seeing them in a healthy, real perspective. I even used this for an essay I had to write!

J'adore! ^_^

(p.s. everyone should real Twilight.)

I got this book along with the "What would you do??" book for my 12 years old step daughter and she loved it...I noticed its hard for her to communicate with us and being that our marriage is new to her and the possibility of having a little brother and sister someday is making her worried that she will no longer be the only child, a book about expressing feelings seemed perfect...She sat down with us to read through the books...THANKS AMERICAN GIRL this book is great!!!

I got this book along with the "What would you do??" book for my 12 years old step daughter and she loved it...I noticed its hard for her to communicate with us and being that our marriage is new to her and the possibility of having a little brother and sister someday is making her worried that she will no longer be the only child, a book about expressing feelings seemed perfect...She sat down with us to read through the books...THANKS AMERICAN GIRL this book is great!!!

Don't get misled by the cover. This book is for girls at any age. . . Really.. As we grow older, people assume we know things that we are not supposed to know. For instance, how to keep and take good care of our emotions and feelings.. This is the book that will get you started..

This particular version of Nicccolo Machievelli's "The Prince" was incredibly easy to read. There was no rubbing my noggin wondering what he was saying. Nope it was as clear as day and the way that he described retaining power is still the same today as it was in his day. Albeit a little less bloody.

Without a doubt, Nicolo Machiavelli has to be the most dissembling, evil man I've ever read. Though he covers it well in his constantly changing subjects and demeanor I would have not wanted to be around him in the 16th century. I would have never trusted him not to ensnare me in one of his plots!

Heard THE PRINCE by Niccolo Machiavelli, one of those books
that I've always meant to read . . . but just never got around to do so.

Now I finally had the opportunity (as a result of being able to listen to it
while driving) and am glad I did--particularly because of its relevance
to what's currently happening in politics . . . also, as a result, I now
have a better understanding of the term Machievellianism . . . or
that any means, however unscrupulous, can justifiably be used
in achieving political power.

Though originally written in the 16th century, THE PRINCE is still
remarkably up to date . . . the examples used by Machiavelli
feel like they come from today's headlines . . . also, they pertain
to many situations wherein power is utilized--both in business
and in the political arena.

There were many quotes that got me thinking; among them:
* Hence it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know
how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity.

* We have not seen great things done in our time except by those
who have been considered mean; the rest have failed.

And this final one:
* If men were entirely good this precept would not hold, but because
they are bad, and will not keep faith with you, you too are not bound
to observe it with them. Nor will thee ever be wanting to a prince
legitimate reasons to excuse this nonobservance.

I found it interesting to learn that Machievelli wrote this book
after he was fired as Secretary to the Second Chancery of the
Signoria . . . methinks that had he been around now, Tim Russert
and/or other political commentators could well be out of job.

Machiavelli's "The Prince" is a guide of morality-void techniques for acquiring and maintaining political power and ultimately, political fortune. Written nearly 500 years ago, this blueprint for tyranny is just as relevant today. As his compass, Machiavelli uses history, both ancient and contemporary. In 500 years, no one has proven him wrong. Here's a flavor for you innocents out there: "For, in truth, there is no sure way of holding other than by destroying, and whoever becomes master of a City accustomed to live in freedom and does not destroy it, may reckon on being destoyed by it". War is Machiavelli's wet dream: "A Prince, therefore, should have no care or thought but for war, and for the regulations and training it requires, and should apply himself exclusively to this as his peculiar province; for war is the sole art looked for in one who rules". Espousing the virtues of the noble lie, Machiavelli follows up with, "men are so simple, and governed so absolutely by their present needs, that he who wishes to deceive will never fail in finding willing dupes". And with this quote, I now challenge anyone to dispute the Machiavellian nature of the American Corporate State as written about in Don't Weep for Me, America: How Democracy in America Became the Prince (While We Slept). All the parallels are brought to light, always through the eyes of George Orwell. Get informed. Your city (country) is being destroyed...

A young colleague of mine recently said `management is easy'. I smiled enigmatically and considered buying him a copy of `The Prince' but I fear it would be wasted. I am now on my third copy of this book which, alas, I can only read in English. The George Bull translation (as reprinted in 1995) is the version I currently refer to.

I first read this book when studying economic history at high school in the second half of the last century. I was intrigued by Machiavelli's advice even though I had little understanding of the Florentine Republic. I next read the book when looking more generally at political models and at Renaissance history. Since then, I've always had a copy: it is as relevant to understanding the art and practice of management as it is to a broader understanding of the models and processes of governance. It also provides some valuable contextual setting for those interested in the Medici.

So why is `The Prince' still relevant? What can we learn from a treatise that was dedicated to Lorenzo de Medici (1492 - 1519) but not published until 1532, some five years after Machiavelli himself was dead?

Specific settings and circumstances may change: general human psychology and motivation does not. There is politics involved in all management. The chasm between management theory and practice is occupied by politics (in all senses) and complicated by the affairs, aspirations and expedient alliances of people.

Jennifer Cameron-Smith

I'm usually concerned about purchasing items on line, especially books. I can honestly say that this experience was worth it. I would recommend this seller to anyone interested in purchasing good quality books at extremely reasonable prices.

Buy with confidence, I did!

Product is exactly as described, shipping just took a little longer than anticipated. Otherwise a wonderful buying experience!

Needed book for required reading for school. Really enjoyed the read. Would recommend for anyone.

/

"A Separate Peace" by John Knowles is a confusing book, which is why it is endorsed for popular consumption.

The reason is that when values are confused, people are far more readily manipulated; moreso, than if they were presented with a story whose propositions by way of story line were more explicit and unconfusing. The novel has nothing at all to do with PEACE, but a lot to do with ANGST, which the author offers as a desireable personality trait.

The first element in the story is its SELF-ABSORBED tone. The random presentation of events, and the fact that the actions of the characters are not founded upon human IDEATION, creates a perfect scenario for an elaborate HALF-TRUTH to be imposed upon the reader. The characters wander through a labyrinth of activities which are meaningless, purposeless, and thoughtless. It's a social engineer's paradise.

In this labyrinth of literary devices Knowle's presents a camouflaged ideation, which is incomplete of course, because the author is offering characters that are conveniently unhinged from reality.

This disconnection permits the dialogue to float adrift on a sea of uncertainty. Unfortunately, the uncertainty is presented as an invariable, and certitude simply isn't there.

What remains is a nihilistic proposition in which people navigate a foggy landscape, with no place to go, and nothing particular to do but wallow around in a teleological No Man's land.

The novel has appeal to people who endorse such propositions, finding fuzzy meanings and messages in the vaccuous verbiage; but that is precisely the author's intention.

There is virtually no value in reading such literature, unless one is merely curious about how nihilistic messages are implanted in the collective psyche, and how human Egotism and self-centeredness become a general proposal as a basis upon which to found a life.

In all, it is literary nonsense, whose potential damage to the human psyche is evident to anyone with an ability to sort through the author's manipulations of logic in storyline and dialogue. It's rather like a "code" in scripted form, with no benefit, unless the reader views as a benefit, fictionalized melodrama and fictionalized crises.

As the proverbialism goes, John Knowles doesn't have anything I want.

--Bruce R. Bain

/

You can see this title on the required summer reading tables in bookstores, and I guess schools have been assigning it for almost fifty years. It is easy to see why. Its characters are all adolescents, engaged in the usual struggle for self-definition, subject to sudden mood-swings between intense affection and crippling self-doubt. And being set in 1942-43, the years following America's entry into the War, it offers a new and valuable perspective on this important period in the nation's history. It is, in short, a teachable text.

But it is a text that requires teaching. For one thing, I am not sure how easily most young people can relate to the hermetic world of a single-sex boarding school, let alone an elite New England prep school (the Dover School of the book is surely modeled after Philips Exeter, which the author attended). Although there is no hint of the homoerotic attractions that were a significant issue at the similar English school I attended a decade later, the book demands some understanding of the emotional impact of a closed world, where one's friends are everything, and every feeling is intensified. The central character, Gene Forrester, though physically no slouch, is primarily a scholar; he is drawn into the magnetic ambience of his roommate Phineas (Finny), a natural athlete for whom no feat is impossible and no scheme too audacious. The plot turns on Gene's inability to discern his own motives, or even to work out whether Finny is his best friend or most jealous rival. A moment of ambiguity early in the novel triggers an event which, though apparently soon laid to rest, will resonate throughout the book, leading to much more serious consequences. A good teacher might profitably discuss questions of truth and perception, motive and blame, on a chapter-by-chapter basis, but Knowles is a subtle and balanced writer who avoids primary colors. The lone reader who does not stop to question the text might well be left with the impression that this is merely an elegant memoir in which little of consequence happens.

The title phrase occurs about two-thirds of the way through the book during an unofficial Winter Carnival that Finny has organized in the snowy fields: "It wasn't the cider that made me surpass myself, it was this liberation we had torn from the gray encroachments of 1943, the escape we had concocted, this afternoon of momentary, illusory, special and separate peace." The peace really is momentary; the very next paragraph introduces the first Devon casualty of the war, not fatal but nearly as devastating. Indeed, the war has been almost imperceptibly in the background for some time, but it now moves to the foreground, as the members of the graduating class move to enlist in one of the services. In the epilogue, Knowles has Gene take the war as a metaphor for the psychological battles fought at school over the past year. I am not certain that this works. But the brief moment when the two worlds, school and war, are temporarily balanced against one another is very poignant indeed.