Fiction Literature Books

i bought this book for my 7 year old kid and he was amazed with it, now he wants to share it with his teacher and his classmates!!!

My newphew enjoys books, but this one was a homerun. My sister tells me that he is completely fascinated with this one. He is 5, but there is so much information in the book, I could see older kids enjoying it as well.

I really like this book. It is fun for my son because it is a pop-up, but at the same time it is also informative.

I am an elementary school teacher, currently teaching 4th grade. I ordered this book as a review of the various geographic elements in review for the NYS Science and SS assessments. Although this is not a book you can read together as a class (there are just too many small details to cover) I highly recommend this for a small group or independent work station. In order to fully utilize the book, I created questions that covered the various topics on each page which guided the students to explore the book and search for the answers. It is a fabulous learning tool and all of the other teachers who have seen this book keep asking me where I got it!!!!

Amazing is absolutely correct! This book is so full of fun facts! It was given to my sister at Christmas, and all of us adults gathered around and couldn't stop looking at and playing with it!

Beautifully written, a masterpiece. Sigrid Undset paints a vivid sketch of Kristin's expectations for an ideal husband. Lavrans, the father of Kristen, is portrayed with qualities I would expect in an ideal father. Kristin's mother is shown to be so human, and yet so estranged from her loving husband and her headstrong daughter! This novel is the story of life, love and the consequences of love. It accurately describes the unbreakable link between happiness and the sorrow that comes along with it. I would recommend this book to any woman contemplating marriage, and to all married women as well!

This is a beautiful book. I read it over 15 years ago and the images and dialogue are still with me. For example, when I remember Kristin's husband saying to her "So it is finally over between us," and Kristin's agonized response, "Over? Why would it be over? There is still much between us that can still be put to ruin," I still get teary-eyed. And when Kristin's first betrothed (for some reason I can't remember the names of the men) says to her husband "I am less forgiving than you. I cannot forgive those who I have harmed," I'm still awed by the depth of the author's understanding for the complexities of human feeling. Though I have an undergraduate degree in literature, I read mostly genre fiction (sci fi, fantasy, historical). To me the perfect novel is beautifully written, insightful, and thought-provoking while still managing to be entertaining. This book is it.

This book is deeply engaging. The language can take some getting used to, depending on the translation - apparently there are 2 translations, and one is better than the other. I read the more difficult translation, and it was a chore at first, but so worth it. A great tale of timeless import, the characters are very vivid and realistic, the writing is superb. No wonder this book won the Nobel Prize.

Father Richard John Neuhaus of First Things Magazine recommended this book. For that I am truly thankful. I am only about a third of the way through it but am enjoying it immensely.

"Kristin Lavrandatter", Sigrid Undset's Nobel-prize winning trilogy from the 1920s, doesn't appear on any college reading list that I have ever seen, despite its beauty, depth of observations about love, marriage, and family psychology, tour de force representation of life in medieval Norway, and the critical praise heaped upon it. It's length (1,000 pages plus in most translations) is probably one factor, and, some might say, another factor was the "medievalist" style of archaic English used in the Charles Archer translation that until recently was the one available. A very recent translation by Tina Nunnally is done in more modern, colloquial English. I should state here that I am probably in a minority in adoring the Archer translation - I did not, as others report below, find the language a chore at all: on the contrary, I found it enhanced the feel of having stepped into the past. I found the newer translation to be less satisfying, stylistically. Unless one speaks fluent Norwegian and can read the original without the veil of translation between reader and author, the matter is somewhat moot. So far as I could tell, Nunnally did not offer anything in her modernist translation that was substantially different from the story and characters presented in the Archer translation.

This great epic of Undset's is divided into three books: The Wreath, The Mistress of Husaby, and The Cross. Set in the 1300s, in feudal Norway, the novel's central character is Kristin Lavransdatter (literally, "daughter of Lavrans"), the eldest child of well-to-do, upright, respected, landowners. Pretty, intelligent, sheltered yet strong-willed, and the light of her deeply religious father's life, the novel opens during Kristin's childhood and ends with her death in old age. In the many pages between, Undset observes a life teeming with conflict, religious struggle, sexual awakening, marriage, and motherhood. And, through these stages of Kristin's life, Undset opens a window onto life in medieval Norway, of the powerful role of the church in everyday life, the restricted roles of women, the custom of arranged marriages, child-rearing, farming, and politics (Norway's monarchy had passed to Sweden at the time).

Undset's achievement at weaving together this enormous tapestry, of presenting so many characters, in addition to Kristin, with all their varied human foibles, is monumental. You will feel as if you have stepped into an alternative, yet quite real universe. Whether you read and prefer the newer translation or (as this reviewer does) the older translation, Undset's knowledge of the poignant, and apparently eternal, realities of relationship and family life should be equally rewarding. Undset had a strong interest in family psychology, women's issues, and was a convert to Catholicism - these interests, together with the painstaking research she undertook, combine to give us this living, breathing picture of life in the Middle Ages.

Book I, The Wreath (the title refers to the golden wreath of maidenhood worn by young girls before marriage) covers Kristin's life from childhood to her wedding; Book II, The Mistress of Husaby, covers Kristin's life from her marriage to her widowhood; Book III, The Cross, covers her life from the death of her husband through her death.

The central conflict of the novel is Kristin's marriage to Erlend Nikulauson. Erlend, although of a noble family and even more well-born than Kristin, has lived in adultery with another man's wife and has two children with her. After Kristin falls in love with Erlend and refuses to marry Simon Darre, the good man that her father has selected for her husband, and who has fallen deeply in love with her despite the arranged character of the marriage, the relationship between Kristin and her father undergoes tremendous strain. A series of tragic circumstances weakens Lavrans's resolve never to wed his daughter to an adulterer, and at last Kristin and Erlend are married, concluding the first book.

Husaby is Erlend's great estate, thus, Book II, The Mistress of Husaby, takes us through Kristin's married life, the complexities of her relationship with her husband, and years of childbearing. Erlend, at heart an adventurer who prefers the open sea to caring for his lands, flocks, and household, chafes under married life and exhibits an undisciplined, weak character except in matters of warfare. Kristin finds she must provide the strengths that he lacks at home and resents Erlend for it. Simon, meanwhile, eventually marries Kristin's youngest sister, although he never ceases to love Kristin, which opens up a breach between the two sisters.

Erlend also becomes embroiled in a failed political coup that eventually deprives him of his lands, forcing him and Kristin and their sons to return to Jorundgaard, Kristin's childhood estate, which is now hers by right after her father's death. Thus, the last book, The Cross, takes us through the hardest years of Kristin's life, with an embittered husband who is killed in a dispute not long after the return to Jorundgaard. Kristin's years as a widow, providing hard-won wisdom and comfort to her brood of headstrong sons, and the spiritual peace she finds at last after her tumultuous life, make up the final section of the book.

Throughout all three books, the role of Catholicism plays a very strong role not only in daily life, but in the psyches particularly of Kristin and her father and mother. The struggle to accommodate the high standards of Christian practice and goodness that conflict with human feelings and weaknesses is a connecting theme in the work, as is the immutable nature of character. One cannot help wondering as one reads what would have happened had Kristin done her father's bidding and married Simon, much the stronger and more sensible man, and one who loves Kristin in his way as much as Erlend does. And yet, Undset makes it clear that the love between Kristin and Erlend, despite all the trials it endures, is one that neither could have lived without.

I cannot recommend this unique and brilliant work highly enough. It will stay with you for the rest of your life.

Many have said that the 120 Days of Sodom is a disgusting work, full of nothing but sado-masochism and torture. Though the latter may be true, one must look at this work objectively, and realize that it is a blatant statement against Fascism, and all the horror of what happens when absolute power is allowed to corrupt absolutely. I've finished this book with nothing but utter respect for de Sade. I have never been so horrified, disgusted, and left with such a cold conscience from reading a book, but this one has achieved what I assume it was meant to achieve. It is a masterpiece. And for those with an open mind, who are not arroused by such filthy things as the abuse of children and the eating of human waste, but are disgusted with such things, this would be highly recommended to read and ponder about.

Upon first reading "120 Days....", I could not believe that it was ever published: although not graphic pornography, It is sickening in the extreme; encompassing coprophagia, child rape and murder, tortures that the Devil himself could not conceive, and an overall sense of slavery that is very depressing. Everyone in this story is a victim in one way or another. The children, of course, are enslaved by the four
"friends", and the libertines are the helpless slaves of their own fiendish desires.
Contrary to other reviewers' opinions, I like Sade's style of writing, and view him as a literary giant. Even his repetition makes a point.
The second time I read this book, I took a different point of view. By the time that it was written, Sade had already been imprisoned, vilified by nearly everyone, and HATED by Napoleon. To my mind, Sade was merely using his art to thumb his nose (so to speak) at the very thin, phony veneer of 'civilization' that paraded as "normalcy" [of the time]. When you re-read the endless lists of "passions", they still hold their shock value, but with a subtle difference. Most of the tortures are so ridiculously preposterous as to be funny. The Marquis must have laughed his head off while inventing them, and their bizarre
quality enhanced by Sade's desire to further infuriate the establishment.
Most of this novel is pure satire: a send-up of the worst things people can do to one another.
The groundwork and basic premise of the book, however, are NOT funny. There is nothing amusing about child rape, kidnapping, being forced to eat human waste, etc. The story itself is one of the most sinister things you will ever read.
This is what art is supposed to do: infuriate, delight, enrage: to provoke an emotional response; and boy does this one deliver.
The companion piece, "Salo", the infamous Pasolini film, follows the storyline (and even some exact dialogue from the book) almost to the letter, but also treats the subject allegorically to the evils of Fascism. If you could not stomach the film, by all means do not read the book.
I believe that in years to come, no other author will ever equal the detailed depravity of Sade. As long as books are read, critics and readers will praise, curse, and debate his work. The Divine Marquis would have been delighted.

So as to sort of add to the discussion, I quote Samuel Beckett's own words about de Sade. SBB here is on point as always. I have to agree with him.

"I have read 1st and 3rd vols. of French edition. The obscenity of surface is indescribable. Nothing could be less pornographical. It fills me with a kind of metaphysical ecstasy. The composition is extraordinary, as rigorous as Dante's. If the dispassionate statement of 600 'passions' is Puritan and a complete absence of satire juvenalesque, then it is, as you say, puritanical and juvenalesque. You would loathe it whether or no... one of the capital works of the 18th century."

Qtd. from p. 269 of Damned to Fame by James Knowlson, the "official" biography of SBB as it were, which is also highly recommended.

After reading through such a phenomenal sequence of tales found in the Grove Press collection of "Justine" I was quite excited to read another book riddled with Sade's writings! Maybe my philosophical mind was set so afire that I was simply expecting far too much from Sade. Don't mistake me; I did like some of the tales, especially "The Crimes of Love". That story was simply superb. However, the main piece of this edition was not what I was expecting, so allow me to go over that in a little more detail.

"The 120 Days of Sodom" is legendary at this point and from what I've read of Sade, this is by far his most depraved and debauched. However, we must put this story into a bit of perspective. This was his first attempt at a great and overzealous work, thus I can't rightly compare it in full against "Justine" which he had written as a more mature author, someone who has grasped the concept of writing a good tale via practice (granted he rewrote and refined "Justine" numerous times). As anyone who reads "The 120 Days of Sodom" we all know it is an unfinished work. I must commend the publisher for including not only the first part of the four part tale, but also the drafts for the unfinished three sections. I confess that regardless how brutal Sade got, regardless of how fragmented and unfinished the tale, I still would have rather found out what happened via a draft than not at all! The way the introduction is setup and the way the actual parts play out, it feels more like Sade was going for being the playwright rather than just a novelist. It's no secret he was interested in theater and I think the setup of this clearly shows that, however, it would be a little while before he really refined his work to become the novelist. However, I have to agree with other people who speculate that Sade has merely tried to reclaim "The 120 Days of Sodom" in his other writings. It's as if this was his blueprint for the vices we would see visited in his future tales. It is no wonder he was surely outraged to have lost it when the Bastille was sacked. I am not so sure he was trying to rewrite this with his later stories, but I think this gave him a sure footing on what he would be able to bring to light in future stories.

"The 120 Days of Sodom" is like a veritable list of sexual manias by that time periods standards. Some of these "manias" have actually become fairly normalized as society has progressed, such as the vice of being whipped and dominated. That concept has been sent intermittently throughout society that it is not as bizarre of a notion as it once was. It makes one really think over Sade's point concerning pleasure and its vices, because if those pleasures can be considered ultimately a norm and thus "good" by some people's standards, then if society progresses further will those more extreme concepts become a norm? I must admit when Sade gets into the torturous and brutal vices it was far beyond my ability to handle such tastes and I had to mostly skip over those sections in the drafts. I could handle a good portion of them, but eventually they just progressed to something so brutal that it was beyond what I enjoy reading. Amidst this list one would expect to find just about everything, and Sade sure does cover just about everything. He spends a great deal of time on coprophagia and whippings, towards the end this develops into torture. Frankly, I'm surprised at the lack of bestiality presented. It's mentioned in a few tales, but it doesn't hold a great focus. Nor do any of his characters seem to practice it. I find this surprising because Sade seemed to be trying to make this a well rounded list, but he greatly neglects this. I see it as a fairly common notion that I would think it should be touched upon, both because it is not generally a normalized practice by the greater population, and it is simply an obvious notion. Perhaps it simply did not interest Sade in the least, or perhaps that he figured cruelty to other reasoning beings was far more evil than cruelty via animals. Either way I was sort of surprised, because he seemed to cover all the bases concerning the other smorgasbord of manias, just seemed a bit curious to me.

The problem that I had with "120 Days of Sodom" and felt was more refined in "Justine" were the philosophical explanations for the vices, basically their justifications. I felt they were glossed over far too quickly than they should have been. The four friends clearly were presented as intelligent men that truly internalized their vices and manias and deemed them to be a very pleasurable thing. However, we only see minute touches of their reasoning. I think Sade spent too much time thinking up crazy scenarios of libertinage for the ladies to tell to the gathering rather than really developing his characters in full. At least as Sade moved into his writing over the years he really developed his characters with a much stronger stance toward their particular interests and went over their justifications. However, there is one point that Sade briefly has his characters touch upon that I find to be paramount in his arguments and that is the relativity of evil. Such as one man may consider coprophagia to be a great evil, while another may see it as a virtue, especially when he finds another that shares the joy of it! Unless, of course, they are similar to the true Sadean motif where the only true pleasure can be found in committing evil, in which case that person would hunt down people that don't like it and do it with them anyway.

Complete in this book are two essays that really try to think about Sade's work and his motivations. I have read a few of these essays that really try to get behind the man and his madness. On some levels it feels like people are over thinking "The 120 Days of Sodom". In some ways I think that by the time Sade was locked up, he was quite outraged at society in general. Granted I'm sure his writing was a therapeutic form to deal with his imprisonment, but with "The 120 Days of Sodom" I think he was out to enact some semblance of revenge on society via the ideologue of writing. No stone could be left without corruption! One of the essays speculates that Sade himself practiced a good deal of these debaucheries, but flatly points out that little is known of Sade in his younger years. I submit that an author merely needs to imagine, which is limitless, it does not mean he was completely speaking from experience. Granted I'm sure he experienced some of the things he wrote of, for there are quite a few vices that he repeats consistently throughout a great deal of his tales, such as coprophagia, whippings and sodomy.

At this point I've come across a rather interesting observation, based on other novels I've read, Sade's work, and just life experience. I've tended to notice that the greater majority of people that have these so called "vices" tend to be male. In Sade's work the females are always presented as being adaptive to the male genders particular mania. Take the character Duclos, for example, while she participated heavily in a varying degree of these vices, she was presently happy to be at the whim of these "heroes". I find this an interesting notion. If you read through his works, the people he speaks of require a very specific ritual in order for them to reach the desired level of "joy". The females act out these rituals as necessary, but don't seem to display any major strict vices of their own. My question is, can this be applied to the greater population? Sure there will be some females out there with quite stringent requirements, just as these fellows are, but I have a feeling they will be in the minority. I simply wonder why that may be.

There are three other creative works included, as I've already mentioned, "The Crimes of Love" is probably the best. It has the shocking Sade styled ending that I have really grown to love. He really faked me out on this tale because I really felt it was going to be a typical happy story, and Sade was just showing off his diversity as a writer, but then it ended on a great note. Most people would think it's cruel, but I like the ending you don't expect. The two tales concerning "Ernestine" were less than interesting, and personally I thought the play was better, mostly because it was the shorter. "Ernestine" the short story is decently written with a great deal of drama and a fairly brutal ending, but a rather happy ending overall. Frankly, I just had a hard time getting into this story and thus it was just okay. Maybe it's because I was expecting a twist like we get in "The Crimes of Love" and I just never really got that.

It was unfortunate, but this collection doesn't seem to collect a lot of Sade's most solid work. I know some fans will probably disagree with me, for many herald "The 120 Days of Sodom" as Sade's best work. The overly thought out justifications just weren't present enough and I think some people find Sade's philosophical points either repetitive or simply unnecessary. Which, I can understand this viewpoint, but I happen to enjoy that aspect of Sade's writing quite a bit. Regardless of how much he beats a point to death or how circular some of his logic is at times, I think it's a very interesting thing to read and try to unravel. Granted a poor work by Sade still gets a great rating, because even at his worst he would still surpass many others by my book. I really enjoyed "The 120 Days of Sodom", but I spent this review time to merely compare it to other works I had read by the same author. When compared against other author's Sade still remains supreme on many levels and I certainly cannot deny the man that.

Although this is far from being the greatest book ever written it is still the most disgusting which after so many years (even WWII) is an amazing achievement in and of itself. The most amazing thing about this book is that you do not have to read it from cover to cover for it to stick with you for the rest of your life. Don't want to waste the money on such "trash"? Fine. Just track it down in a bookstore (Boarders sells it), and read a few pages and see for yourself. You won't soon forget the words or the images your imagination conjures up. And if you have already seen the movie but not read the book, the movie is only about 25% of the brutality of the book. As they say, "Let the buyer beware."

I read this book when I was in seventh grade, and it made me want to read. I'll be minoring in literature next year in college. A contemporary classic, perfect for anyone who wants a quick, but enriching read.

Well, most people in America have already read "Lord of the Flies" by William Golding, which is definitely a classic. So I'm not going to give a synopsis, just a general appraisal of the work.

The main characters (Ralph, Jack, Piggy, Roger, and many more) are very complex and very riveting. You can clearly observe their distinctive personalities with their actions and their dialogue. And you feel sorry for these characters when something goes horribly wrong.

There are many symbolisms in this book (the conch, the pigs, the flies, etc.), and they work very well here. Interpretations are open (except when it comes to the obvious ones). Tensions are high as we slowly move towards the climax. No Hollywood ending here.

Golding has created an influential work of art, as highlights in this book are many. This isn't an innocent story, and it's no cliché, either. Kudos to the author.

A+

"The Lord of the Flies" is an epic adventure full of fear and suspense that leaves its readers on the edge of their seats, wondering what will happen next. It's about a vast group of boys who are marooned on an island and forced to create their own society. Without parents to guide them, the boys slowly let go of civilization and their savage nature emerges.

My favorite part of the book is where the group of boys are fully consumed by the primal evil that dwells in their hearts. Their feelings of fear and rage rise up and force them over the edge. They snap and kill their friend Piggy by crushing him with a boulder.

I recommend this book because it puts you in a state of mind where logic is bent and twisted. It gives you a peek at insanity. This book has non-stop action and it allows you to vividly imagine what is going on. I couldn't put it down and you won't be able to either.

what doesn't this book have. action, adventure, excitement, war, it has everything. it's written in an easy to understand language (tho' that doesn't necessarily mean that you'll pick up on the symbolism that golding put into everything). and you definately get a totally different perception of the book as you get older (this is my third reading of it, and each time, i get something different from it). i think this should be required reading and that everyone should own a copy.

Since a George Orwell reference is obviously required here, I read 'Animal Farm' directly before Lord of the Flies. And I was foolish enough to think that Animal farm is a great book! It can hardly stand on all four legs when measuring up to Lord of the Flies.
Just as 'Animal Farm' is a parody of the Russian Revolution, 'Lord of the Flies' is more of a parable for mankind than an inspiration for 'Hatchet'. Every (major) character is a symbol of some aspect of human nature. And what is a literal translation of "Beelzebub?" Not devil, as you might suspect -- "Lord of the Flies."
And if the Lord of the Flies is the Devil, Simon is Christ, or pure good -- the only boy brave enough to discover what the beast really is, the only one...crazy enough to understand it, and the one who would be sacrificed by all for trying to spread the words of the Lord of the Flies.
No, I did not read this book for class, thank God, or else I would most likely hate it just for that reason. I despise hearing teachers read aloud, I don't know why, and their stupid assignments (What would you do if you were trapped on an island? What would you bring?) completely miss the entire point of the book. This is not a survival story!
My edition of Lord of the Flies was printed in the seventies,and it is falling apart (I found it in my dad's study in the basement). The scotch-taped cover is blank white, except for the title and a simple sketch of the head and arms of a boy, head bent like a baby, clutching his hair in anguish. He appears to be covered in blood. Is it Ralph at the beginning of Chapter 11 (you'll see what I mean)? Is it a struggling, uncertain Jack?
Lord of the Flies is definitely not a survival story.

I ordered two copies of this book because I thought I would have to sit and read it with my 10 year old. She finished it in less than an hour. Needless to say, I didn't have to read it with her. She wanted more detail, so I am going to buy the Hearney (I think that is how you spell it) translation. I think that will be a better fit.

Beowulf: A New Telling is great. Amazon's shipping however, is NOT. I ordered 32 copies-no rush delivery- and they were delivered in 5 SEPARATE PACKAGES!!!! Totally unnecessary, I believe, and very confusing for me and my school bookkeeper!

Here you have a re-telling of the story, Beowulf, for those age 12 and up. The reader will enjoy its good, solid, plot unencumbered with the sometimes odd (or stupid) twists and changes that the "visionaries" in Hollywood have repeatedly and needlessly used to enhance it.

It retains the original's storyline, but for those of us who are not fluent in "olde English," it's in quite simple modern English.

The themes of good vs evil are clear. The main characters are well enough developed so that the reader can enjoy each: The good guys are good; and the monster as well as other bad-guy types drip with insanity, EVIL, and really atrocious table manners!

Additionally, it's not very long - somewhere around 100 pages.

I recently purchased Beowulf: A New Telling by Robert Nye to read with my ninth grade special education students. They thoroughly enjoyed it and were able to dive into the symbolism used in the tale. I know it was a success because they have all ready made plans to go see the movie when it opens!!

Rather than offering my own opinion of this book, I will give you a few brief quotations describing the major characters and allow you to decide for yourself if this book is worth reading. Author Robert Nye describes the character of Beowulf as "weak and sickly" in his youth and "below average size" as an adult. He also describes Beowulf as "short sighted." He claims that Beowulf "admits to his weaknesses" and is "not given to boasting." This begs the question: what Beowulf is Nye talking about? The real Beowulf, the one that we know from the epic 7th century poem, was none of these things. We are told that he was neither small nor weak, but rather he possessed the strength of 30 men ("thirty men's might in the grip of his hand").This is how he was able to overpower his adversary, the demon Grendel, when no other man could challenge Grendel. The original Beowulf boasted quite often. Apparently, Robert Nye has his own idea of how a "hero" should behave. Instead of arrogance in Beowulf we see humility when he says, "He was a better swimmer than I" in reference to his dramatic swimming race against Breca. The problem here is that Beowulf did not lose this race with Breca. He won! But Nye's Beowulf cannot be all-powerful and still be humble, meek and peace-loving. We know from the original story that Beowulf cut off Grendel's head after he was dead, so he could offer it to the Danes as a trophy. This action was apparently too harsh for Nye. Instead, he tells us that Beowulf cut off Grendel's head in self-defense after Grendel momentarily came back from the dead!

The character of Unferth has also been dramatically altered. He is portrayed as both pathetic and evil, a drunkard full of contempt for Beowulf and his people. As such, his words carry no weight and he really serves no purpose in the story. The real Unferth was an insecure man, who was desperately afraid of Beowulf gaining more glory than him. But there is no evidence in the poem that he was evil or that he hated his own people.

The depiction of Grendel's mother in this book is downright laughable. Nye tells us that she has "red lips" and "hanging breasts." Furthermore, "she had eyes in her breasts." We are never told why she needs eyes in her breasts, but I guess the author just liked this visual.

Grendel's mother is also described as the "wife of Cain." According to Nye, Cain had sex with Grendel's mother (an evil serpent) and the resulting offspring was the hideous creature Grendel. To someone unfamiliar with the poem, this might seem logical. But this is where Robert Nye really misses the point (or chooses to ignore the point). Grendel is a descendant of Cain - this much is true. But Grendel's evil nature did not arise because of a sinful union between Cain and his mother. Cain was already sinful after killing his brother and then being cast out by God. As a result, his offspring were evil and - over thousands of years - slowly became monstrous. This happened because Cain and his offspring were separated from God.

It shouldn't be surprising, however, that Nye fails to address this point. As previous reviewers have already stated, Nye chooses to ignore the Christian basis of the poem. His Beowulf has no relationship with God. In the poem, we know that Beowulf draws strength and inspiration from God, and he thanks God for his successes in battle ("the deadly struggle at the start would have ended, if God had not watched over me") Instead, Nye tells us that "Beowulf's best weapon was himself. He put all his faith in that." Beowulf believed in himself fully and therefore had no need for God - according to Mr. Nye. Let's not forget that this story is really about the battle between good and evil, Beowulf (God) versus Grendel (Satan). The poem tells us that Grendel came from Hell, and that he was an "enemy of God," who "waged war against God." Regarding Beowulf, the poem tells us that "Holy God has sent him to help our people."

If you choose to read this book you will notice that Mr. Nye wisely includes a disclaimer: "This is an interpretation, not a translation." Perhaps this is how he justifies changing the original story to such an extent that the characters are unrecognizable. His book, therefore, is not an interpretation of the original story but an alteration of it. Instead of bringing honor to the poem, he dishonors it.

There's nothing wrong with Mr. Nye writing a story about a humble, unimpressive man who manages to overcome his weaknesses. He just shouldn't have named him Beowulf.

"Doctor Zhivago" by Boris Pasternak, © 1957, 1958, 1958

Quite the love story. It is sad, and a lot is made of the Russian Revolution, as is right. The times were in turmoil and it affected everyone. It is to be noted that the same events are happening in Iraq today: factions fighting factions; injustice and terrorism are treated as if just and right because the perpetrators are a part of some group that thinks so; etc.
This is really a soap opera. People live their lives and have troubles, solve problems, create heartache and what not, just like we do in real life. The story does not deal in psychology, so a few times the choices of the characters are truly left to your own intuition and understanding of human nature. Some of the philosophy spouted by these people gets a bit esoteric and convoluted, by and large, it is understandable, just a bit odd to read in a literary story.
As I read the book, I began to feel as if, if I tried, I could see Lara as a microcosm for Russian peasants. They were violated young, treated all right for a time, left to their own resources, on and on, up through the Russian Revolution. Maybe that is the quality of this book that so many people were enthralled to read it. It could also have been the history told through personal toil that was what people of the West were really interested in. I am not a real fan of that sort of literature. I did not enjoy reading Galsworthy, "The Forsthye Saga" either. They are just too mundane
It is interesting that this is a story of a philander. Yuri marries his childhood sweetheart, then finds another sweet and gentle soul to enjoy. The marriage falls apart due to social conditions and Yuri's inability to do anything for his family. At one point, he realizes he has not been much of a father to his children. It makes him sad, but there is little he can do to undo or make things better for any of them. I guess that, in the sense that a philander goes outside of his marriage to have sex for the heightened libido or something, Yuri is not like that. He truly loves his wife and Lara, seemingly equally as much. They both have the sun shining out of their root charka, as far as he is concerned. As for his last lover, there he is just trying to still be human, but his mental state is such that he fails at that and in the end abandons her.

Like others have said, this book does a great job at depicting what Russia was like during the revolution. Otherwise, the story is really hard to get into. It's historically important, but not an enjoyable read.

I've never been to Russia, but poet Boris Pasternak made me feel as if I could see with my very own eyes the long beautiful snow covered hills of the country side and the beauty of Moscow before and still during the hardships of the Russian Revolution. The novel begins with Pasternak depriving the Zhivago family of their wealth and sets the reader up for the coming Revolution. The story of Doctor Zhivago to some is an unforgettable love story while to others the account of the consequences of the revolution with its crimes, starvation, epidemics and war.

The poet/physician Doctor Zhivago, Yuri Andreievich, is the main character who the reader follows before and through the Revolution up to the end of the book. The reader also learns of Tonia, Lara and some other friends during the first chapters as Pasternak shows the different worlds they come from, explaining the different classes and hardships associated with them.

Yuri who grows up in Moscow, with the Gromeko family, later marries their child Tonia. Lara marries Pavel Antipov, Pasha, who goes to war. Incidentally, Lara and Zhivago meet while in serving at the military sites with the wounded. After the war, Zhivago and his family move to the country side near the city of Yuriatin. The story continues as Zhivago, who is evidently madly in love with Lara meets with her in Yuriatin and they begin their affair. One day as he is returning back to Tonia, supposedly with the intentions of never seeing Lara again, he is kidnapped by the Partisans who keep him as their doctor during the Civil War.

These are some of the events that occur during the course of the book, ones that are memorable but also ones that are hard to understand and get into. Boris Pasternak included many minor characters within his book, ones that seem almost insignificant to the actual plot and make the reader question their presence. Because of the little development and poor prose it is hard to become truly attached to any of the characters. He also has a tendency to include overly descriptive details at times.

Many question the greatness of the love Zhivago really deemed to have had. If he really had that love for not only Tonia but Lara as well why did he approach the different situations in his life the way he did? This was one of the reasons you want to keep turning the pages to find out what happens to Zhivago, what he will do and how he will do it.

That's not to say that the ending of the book does not bring some disappointment to the reader. It rather unfinished with the character development with the reader hoping Zhivago had approached his life differently so that the book could really end as a love story. However, the underlying theme next to the love are the individuals responses to the circumstances that are beyond the familiar experiences. Although Boris Pasternak used some philosophy that was a bit convoluted the book was fairly easy to understand. The hardships and crimes of the Russian Revolution, and the Civil War leave are distressing and moving.

Overall I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to read a classic, perhaps its being so broken apart and with so many different details, situations and characters makes it relatable to life. The fact that it is written by a poet can be seen with the beautiful poems and descriptions that leave one with a clear picture in their mind

"Doctor Zhivago" by Boris Pasternak, © 1957, 1958, 1958

Quite the love story. It is sad, and a lot is made of the Russian Revolution, as is right. The times were in turmoil and it affected everyone. It is to be noted that the same events are happening in Iraq today: factions fighting factions; injustice and terrorism are treated as if just and right because the perpetrators are a part of some group that thinks so; etc.
This is really a soap opera. People live their lives and have troubles, solve problems, create heartache and what not, just like we do in real life. The story does not deal in psychology, so a few times the choices of the characters are truly left to your own intuition and understanding of human nature. Some of the philosophy spouted by these people gets a bit esoteric and convoluted, by and large, it is understandable, just a bit odd to read in a literary story.
As I read the book, I began to feel as if, if I tried, I could see Lara as a microcosm for Russian peasants. They were violated young, treated all right for a time, left to their own resources, on and on, up through the Russian Revolution. Maybe that is the quality of this book that so many people were enthralled to read it. It could also have been the history told through personal toil that was what people of the West were really interested in. I am not a real fan of that sort of literature. I did not enjoy reading Galsworthy, "The Forsthye Saga" either. They are just too mundane
It is interesting that this is a story of a philander. Yuri marries his childhood sweetheart, then finds another sweet and gentle soul to enjoy. The marriage falls apart due to social conditions and Yuri's inability to do anything for his family. At one point, he realizes he has not been much of a father to his children. It makes him sad, but there is little he can do to undo or make things better for any of them. I guess that, in the sense that a philander goes outside of his marriage to have sex for the heightened libido or something, Yuri is not like that. He truly loves his wife and Lara, seemingly equally as much. They both have the sun shining out of their root charka, as far as he is concerned. As for his last lover, there he is just trying to still be human, but his mental state is such that he fails at that and in the end abandons her.

My first reading of Dr. Zhivago was in high school. At 15, the book was a chore. Impenetrable and numerous Russian names (often for the same character) and endless description of the Russian landscape left me exhausted and unimpressed. After rereading and enjoying a few other high school assignments, I came across Dr. Zhivago on my bookshelf and wondered if I would find more appreciation for Mr. Pasternak's novel ten years later.

Yes, I did. And no, I didn't.

I found that this time around I had something more of a connection with the characters. I better understood the way that life can pull a person in strange directions and drop them into unexpected and unwanted situations. I understood that sometimes people are swept into and out of the place they want to be - and why they stay where things are bad and leave where things are good. I certainly had a far greater appreciation for Pasternak's obviously loving descriptions of his homeland.

That said, the things that drove my dislike of Dr. Zhivago the first time were still still there. The sprawling story and unending task of keeping all the characters straight were still a detraction. I don't know if the problem with character names springs from the fact that, being Russian names, they are unfamiliar to my mind or if Pasternak simply failed to rein in his cast of thousands. Unresolved plot lines rarely bother me but, when combined with extensive background on what ending up being minor characters, Dr. Zhivago felt a bit as if Pasternak let the narrative get away from him. Maybe that was the point. Sometimes life just gets away from you. After all, he's the one with a Nobel Prize. Who am I to criticize?

While I actually liked the novel this time, I feel as if I should have liked Dr. Zhivago more than I did. Maybe it's that I can't escape my first impression.