Sophocles finished the trilogy nicely with this. Part 3 basically revolves around the contrast between Creon's hatred and Antigone's compassion. Creon's son also plays an interesting role. He sways between his father and Antigone, and finally he chooses Antigone. The death of Antigone and Creon's son is a worthy followup to the horror of Oediuus blinding himself and the beauty of Oedipus "seemingly sighted" entering the Greek version of heaven. It is also interesting that when Creon beholds this horror, he too becomes human again. It is interesting that Sophocles creates both intense horror and beauty in each part of the trilogy. Also, the horror in his plays returns the characters to humanity.

Many people make the mistake of only reading part 1 of this trilogy. In my opinion, it is a horrible mistake to ignore parts 2 and 3. The blind Oedipus is touchingly lead by his daughter. (I can not help but suspect this inspired the relationship between Edgar and Gloucester in Shakespeare's "King Lear.") It is also in this play that we see Creon is not exactly an outstanding citizen. He seemed nice enough in part 1, but once he has Oedipus' power, he is somewhat of a tyrant. It is also in part 2 that we are able to get a closer look at Oedipus. (REMEMBER, HE DID NOT KNOW HE HAD KILLED HIS FATHER, MARRIED HIS MOTHER, AND HAD CHILDREN WITH HIS MOTHER.) It is in this play that we see the human side of Oedipus. I can not overestimate the beauty of the scene where "seemingly sighted" he enters the Greek Version of heaven. Again remember, the story does not end here. You MUST read "Antigone" (Part 3).

I have respect for Homer's "Iliad." To be sure there are powerful images, dramatic confrontations, beautiful passages, and deep psychological insights. But in all honesty, I feel Homer lacks the genious of Aeschylus or Sophocles. Do not get me wrong. "The Iliad" IS an important and worthy study. I just can't say it matches Sophocles' Trilogy or Aeschylus' Trilogy.

Well, the only reason anyone would need this book is if they were trying to understand the concepts of literature or if they were planning to write. AH, and if they are, this book is a CRUCIAL STUDY. As an English Major, I encountered WAY TOO MANY critiques that are based on absurd marxist theories. Remember, literature reflects a SPECIFIC TIME, PLACE, AND ERA! I am a devout Anglican and I DO NOT shun Hawthorne's work because much of it is Anti Anglican. I understand that Hawthorne was reflecting an Anti Anglican Period in America. It is absurd to judge literature harshly because it does not fall into contemporary political slots whatever they may be at the moment. This book by Aristotle is a concise, focused, and appropriate look at the concept of literature. He emphasizes the need of close conflicts as opposed to hero versus enemy. He also makes it clear that writing must have recognition and/or reversal at some point. Also, he states the need for surprise events. Another thing he does is he helps us see that some events may be important, but it is better to mention them instead of displaying them. He also stresses the need for characters to play on our fear or pity. While this is more of a reference book, it belongs in the library of any student of literature.

I read this when I took the Comic Vision in school. In all honesty this is a phenomenal piece of literature. Wilde offers comedy of several sorts. The bickering between Jack and Algernon and the bickering between Gwendolen and Cecily is well drawn. Lady Bracknell is a dominating figure in herself. Miss Prism and the Priest are also memorable supporting characters. Wilde also offers a funny repetition of events when first Jack tries to woo Gwendolen under an alias identity and then Algernon tries to woo Cecily under the same alias identity. This makes the scene where they all meet together hilarious! But Wilde DOES NOT stop here! After the 2 men and 2 women bickered with each other, Jack and Algernon team up to win the love of their lives, and Gwendolen and Cecily team up to determine the integrity of Jack and Algernon. The end of this defines dramatic irony! (I don't want to spoil it.) Perhaps the greatest thing about this book is that Wilde skillfully balances subtle humour and major dramatic irony. If you like this book, you MUST see the Paramount Production. Most video stores should have it.

Well, this is not the drum I march to. Nevertheless, this is an interesting piece of literature. H.G. Wells does a very good job of creating images. He also manages to offer us suspense, comedy, drama, and chills. One thing he does very well is that he grabs our attention in the 2nd half by revealing the identity of the invisible man along with his background. Perhaps the worst I can say about this book is that I enjoyed the movie with Claude Rains better.

My mother really liked the movie with Mel Gibson. When she read the book, she was disappointed. Now to be sure, the book is good. It offers some interesting insight into human nature. The images are fine and it does have some well placed comedy and tragedy. But in all honesty, the movie OUTDOES the book. Mel Gibson makes the disfigured teacher all the more profound and sympathetic. Also, Gibson deepens the story by emphasizing the tragic past of Justin along with his isolation. The book focuses more on Justin's ruined face. Gibson takes it a BIG step further and combines the biological, historical, and social scars. Don't get me wrong. It's a good book, but if you have already seen the movie,chances are you will be disappointed just as my mother was.

On one hand this book is a valuable tool. It offers summaries of the plays, historical production dates, close looks at different characters, and interesting comments. On the other hand, it is too modern. Too many of the Boyce's opinions judge Shakespeare's writing by modern standards. Many English Majors (myself included), abhor Marxist beliefs. The reason is that literature reflects a SPECIFIC TIME, PLACE, AND ERA. It is NOT RIGHT to condemn an author because his work does not fall into the contemporary political slots (whatever they might be at the moment). I suggest this book for the plot synopsis sections. (They are very helpful.) But I would not judge the plays by the Marxist theories presented.

My only complaint about this book is that Asimov gets too strong in some of his personal opinions. (Harsh opinions of Banquo, Brutus, Richard II etc.) But aside from that I value this book highly. He helps us to see some things Shakespeare's original audience would be able to pick up on WITHOUT being told. This helps one to understand Shakespeare's plays more. Also for the most part he DOES avoid the absurd marxist views that tend to over simplify the anaylisis. He is especially helpful in the history plays. Understanding Shakespeare's historical plays depends to a large extent on knowing the facts that Shakespeare does not mention (but that the original audience would have known). He also offers educated speculation that offers deep insights. While I do not agree with him on EVERYTHING, his views are interesting.

If I were teaching theology, this is the bible I would use. This is the best one to learn the scriptures on because it is very straight forward and easy to read. I have a fondness for "The King James." But I would not use it to teach with. The reason is that too much time could be spent on teaching the Elizabethan. I also like "The Living." But that translation should only be read after one has a healthy knowledge of the church and the scriptures. In my opinion, "The Revised Standard" should be read before any other translation is looked at.