2 comments about Playwriting: The Structure of Action, Revised and Expanded Edition.

1. I've been hoping for a reprint of this for years. It is one of the wisest books about play construction I know. I use it extensively in my Playscript Analysis class. The Aristotle-based approach to understanding play structure leads readers beyond the shallow "how to" approach of most books about playwriting and leads them to a deeper understanding of the essential nature of dramatic art. This book will still be read when the flavor-of-the-month how-to-write-a-screenplay-in-one-weekend books are all forgotten. The extensive examples from classics of dramatic literature illustrate the author's points. An essential part of any theatre practitioner's library.



2. As a 30-year playwright and a 20-year playwriting instructor, I can recommend Smiley's text for those interested in the philosophy of script construction, but do not suggest it as a "how-to" book. Smiley is poetic, romantic, and writes well, yet assumes the reader already understands basic structure. Not for everyone.

5 comments about The Oresteia Trilogy: Agamemnon, the Libation-Bearers and the Furies.

1. The value of The Oresteia Trilogy, written by Aeschylus in the fifth century B.C., can be described as educational and informative. However, the entertainment value, by present day's standards, is extremely lacking. The lengthy speeches and lack of physical action are too restricting for today's drama. A performance of The Oresteia Trilogy, while well regarded in theater departments of universities, would not be well received by an audience looking for a night of entertainment. The tragedy set in ancient Greece in 1250 B.C. tells the background and story of Orestes, the son of a king. He vows to avenge his father's murder by his mother, Clytemnestra. The Oresteia Trilogy is missing the ability to provide the audience with entertainment and information at the same time, which is a key concept for an enjoyable experience.
   In the Golden Age of Athens, the time and city of Aeschylus, drama and the idea of a pure democracy were two of many advances. In The Oresteia Trilogy as well as many of the other plays Aeschylus wrote, he introduced many innovations to go along with the progressing times. A reduced chorus, more dialogue, poetic diction, as well as elaborate staging and multiple actors are all a result of Aeschylus's influence. The idea of democracy is also introduced in the third play of the trilogy, "The Furies." A court is held with what is now known as a jury of peers, which now plays an important role in today's courtrooms. The importance of The Oresteia Trilogy in today's society is that it gave one of the first glimpses of justice working in the democratic court system.
   In relation to many plays with tragic themes, it is fair to say Aeschylus's The Oresteia Trilogy is archaic, as far as relating to current society. Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, also a tragedy, can be related to the modern-day teen, such as myself, easily. It involves the story of two young adults, in love, with the problem of their families being at conflict for many years. They struggle to stay together only to both resolve to suicide. However, many adolescents can relate to their own families disapproval of the person they date. Conversely, in The Oresteia Trilogy I found it difficult to relate to any one character. The story involves the sacrifice of a daughter, Iphigenia; the murder of a husband and king, Agamemnon; and the murder of a mother, Clytemnestra, by her son, Orestes. Throughout this whole plot, it was challenging to align with any single event or character in the story. The adultery present can be related to the contemporary culture as well as the trial of Orestes, but as a whole the play resulted in little connection with the youth in today's world.
   The predictability of the story line was also a disappointing part of the reading process. After the first play, "Agamemnon," the second two plays, "The Libation-Bearers" and "The Furies," seemed to be unsurprising and expected. The audience is able to predict the murder of Clytemnestra and the role of Orestes. One unknowledgeable fact in the beginning is the fate of Orestes. However, after the first several pages of "The Furies" that, as well, can be foreseen.
   Finally, while the entertainment value of Aeschylus's trilogy is not adequate, the educational worth is ample. After reading the plays, one has a better understanding of the time period surrounding 1250 B.C. These works resulted in a greater comprehension of the religious beliefs of the time, which include a polytheistic view with the gods working directly with the common people. Also, mentioned was the government, in the form of kings and queens, as well a brief glimpse of the Trojan War. Knowledge of the fifth century drama presentation using a chorus and less direct dialogue between characters was also achieved when reading The Oresteia Trilogy.
   As times have changed, so has the overall worthiness of Aeschylus's The Oresteia Trilogy. It is worthwhile for the reader to both attain knowledge and experience entertainment. Other representations of a tragedy are available that reach this goal. The Oresteia Trilogy does not accomplish both these goals, and therefore, cause the audience to lessen their purpose in reading. While the educational purposes of reading this particular trilogy are present and effective, if the fundamental reason to read is entertainment, it is worthwhile to look at different tragic plays available. The plot and the author's ability to relate the characters to the reader are downfalls for the audience and could lead to a great disappointment.



2. I don't consider myself a women's rights activist my any means, but upon reading Aeschylus' tragedy The Oresteia Trilogy I was able to sympathize with them. I felt these play, written between 500-400B.C. in Greece, portrayed women as the lesser sex. They were presented as evil, worthless, conspiring creatures. I truly appreciate the poetic text of the play, for it was beautifully written. But I feel that Aeschylus' portrayal of the women was a little harsh.
   The three plays that form the trilogy tell the story of the curse of the house of Atreus. In the first play, "Agamemnon," Agamemnon, king of the city of Mycene, is murdered by his wife Clytemnestra after he returns home from the ten year long Trojan War. In the second play, "The Libation-Bearers," Agamemnon's son Orestes avenges the death of his father by slaying his mother Clytemnestra. The third play entitled "The Furies" is about Orestes struggle with the furies, creatures from the underground that come to torment Orestes about his mother's death.
   In the first play the chorus, which consists of the elders of the city, tells the story of the start of the Trojan War and its causes. They blame the whole war on a woman, Helen. Helen was the reason for the war, but it wasn't her fault, as the chorus says it to be. When one reads the play they begin to hate Helen because the chorus belittles her so much. They don't place any of the blame on Paris who actually stole her, simply because she was the most beautiful woman in the world. Is it right to fault someone because of a pretty face? It was said that Helen went willingly, without any struggle. The chorus constantly ridicules her saying that she is an adulteress and the cause of all the fighting and death; "Slain for a women's sin, a false wife's shame!"("Agamenon"pg.17). She might have went willingly, but could she have prevented Paris from taking her?
   "Not the true parent is the mother's womb, she doth but nurse the seed new-sown: the male is the parent; she for him, as stranger for a stranger, hoards the gem."("The Furies" pg137). This is a quote from the god Apollo describing the role of women. He claims that the man is the only parent of a child. The only thing that the woman does is house the man's seed until the child is born. Apollo argues that a women has no role in the actual creation of a child, it is the man's seed that forms the child. He also claims that the killing of a husband is far worse than the killing of a mother. But is one truly worse than the other?
   In the third play malevolent creatures from the underworld arise to torment Orestes about the murder of his mother. These monsters, known as furies, are despised by all. They are known as spiteful, revengeful, and evil. They are also all women. One could possible argue that they are women because they are avenging a matricide, but we can't be fully confident of the underlying meaning of the all women furies.
   I understand that times have changed dramatically from the time that Aeschylus wrote, and that our perception of many things, especially the role and treatment of women, are different. But I feel that the women in this play really received a bad rap. Are women really the evil sex?



3. "The Eumenides" was a captivating play with a few minor flaws. To fully understand the play, one must first understand the history that went on before the play took place. "The Eumenides" was written by Aeschylus and is also known as "The Furies", the third play of The Oresteia Trilogy. This play is set around the time period of 1250 B.C., approximately the same time as the Trojan War. The main character of the play is Orestes from Argos. In the plays before "The Eumenides", Orestes killed his mom, Clytemnestra, who killed Orestes' dad, Agamemnon, after he returned home from war. Orestes was told by Apollo to kill his mom in order to avenge his father's death. Therefore, this is the reason "The Eumenides" began at Apollo's temple.
   Aeschylus was an Athenian man who wrote thirteen first place plays. He wrote this tragedy around 458 B.C. This play had some new innovations for its time period, such as a second actor, elaborate staging, and poetic diction. Aeschylus was in the navy at Salamis and took part in the Persian Invasion in 480 B.C. He died in 456 B.C., when an eagle dropped a tortoise on his head, crushing his skull.
   "The Eumenides" was a great play, as were the other two of the trilogy. The poetic words seemed to flow from the actors' mouths, maybe a little too much when the Furies spoke prior to the trial. The Furies were annoying throughout the play and had too many rambling speaking parts. However, the play contained a practical plot line that is still fit for today's society, even though it was written some 2,461 years ago. I enjoyed seeing how the people from long ago dealt with similar issues, which still haunt our society today.
   The plot appeared to flow steadily throughout the play. All of the various scenes streamed together and gave an insight into what life was like for Orestes. However, there wasn't much action throughout the play, but the lack of action was made up with suspense provided during the trial. Overall, Aeschylus did an excellent job writing the play.
   Throughout "The Eumenides" Aeschylus chose his words perfectly. The poetic words surged smoothly through the actors' mouths. Perhaps one of the most interesting parts was listening to how Aeschylus managed to make rhymes that lasted for a good five minutes, while still making sense. He also used excellent metaphors and similes to emphasize certain points being made during the trial. Although the words may have been offensive to some, they helped highlight the common thought most people had in that time period. The language was difficult to understand at first, but as the play went on, the language became easier to understand. Perhaps one of the best qualities about this play is how it relates to today's society. We are still forced to judge whether a person is innocent or guilty of murder. We still ask God for help and believe that God knows best for us. We also have a similar court system, such as the one the Athenians used. "The Eumenides" shows how we should always obey our God, just as the Athenians did because God will always be on our side, just like Apollo was towards Orestes. In addition, it was interesting to see how the gods interacted with the humans in the Greek times. The play made it clear that gods played a huge role in the decision making at the trial and all other life decisions of the citizens.
   Most of "The Eumenides" was entertaining; however, there were a few dreadful parts. Before the trial, the Furies spoke way too much. The Furies points could have been made in a one or two minute speech, instead of an eight to ten minute speech. Moreover, the way the Furies talked was annoying. I couldn't stand to listen to one of them start a line, and another one finish it. It was hard to tell who was talking because they wore masks. Furthermore, the Furies continual swaying movement drove me crazy.
   The actors and costumes were a perfect match for the play. The actors appeared very natural at their roles. They weren't too dramatic, but they weren't stoic either. The costumes were great as well. They had just enough clues to be able to tell who was who.
   Overall, the "perfectly cast" actors speak their words poetically throughout the play. In addition, it is refreshing to watch a play in which the old-fashioned props and costumes are used. Plus, I like the idea of religion playing a prominent part in the characters' lives, since most modern plays try to avoid religion. "The Eumenides" isn't just the greatest play of The Oresteia Trilogy, but one of the greatest plays of all time.



4. ...
   "The Eumenides" was a captivating play with a few minor flaws. To fully understand the play, one must first understand the history that went on before the play took place. "The Eumenides" was written by Aeschylus and is also known as "The Furies", the third play of The Oresteia Trilogy. This play is set around the time period of 1250 B.C., approximately the same time as the Trojan War. The main character of the play is Orestes from Argos. In the plays before "The Eumenides", Orestes killed his mom, Clytemnestra, who killed Orestes' dad, Agamemnon, after he returned home from war. Orestes was told by Apollo to kill his mom in order to avenge his father's death. Therefore, this is the reason "The Eumenides" began at Apollo's temple.
   Aeschylus was an Athenian man who wrote thirteen first place plays. He wrote this tragedy around 458 B.C. This play had some new innovations for its time period, such as a second actor, elaborate staging, and poetic diction. Aeschylus was in the navy at Salamis and
   
   ...
   Page 2

   took part in the Persian Invasion in 480 B.C. He died in 456 B.C., when an eagle dropped a tortoise on his head, crushing his skull.
   "The Eumenides" was a great play, as were the other two of the trilogy. The poetic words seemed to flow from the actors' mouths, maybe a little too much when the Furies spoke prior to the trial. The Furies were annoying throughout the play and had too many rambling speaking parts. However, the play contained a practical plot line that is still fit for today's society, even though it was written some 2,461 years ago. I enjoyed seeing how the people from long ago dealt with similar issues, which still haunt our society today.
   The plot appeared to flow steadily throughout the play. All of the various scenes streamed together and gave an insight into what life was like for Orestes. However, there wasn't much action throughout the play, but the lack of action was made up with suspense provided during the trial. Overall, Aeschylus did an excellent job writing the play.
   Throughout "The Eumenides" Aeschylus chose his words perfectly. The poetic words surged smoothly through the actors' mouths. Perhaps one of the most interesting parts was listening to how Aeschylus managed to make rhymes that lasted for a good five minutes, while still making sense. He also used excellent metaphors and similes to emphasize certain points being made during the trial. Although the words may have been offensive to some, they helped highlight the common thought most people had in that time period. The language was difficult to understand at first, but as the play went on, the language became easier to understand.

   ...
   Page 3
   Perhaps one of the best qualities about this play is how it relates to today's society. We are still forced to judge whether a person is innocent or guilty of murder. We still ask God for help and believe that God knows best for us. We also have a similar court system, such as the one the Athenians used. "The Eumenides" shows how we should always obey our God, just as the Athenians did because God will always be on our side, just like Apollo was towards Orestes. In addition, it was interesting to see how the gods interacted with the humans in the Greek times. The play made it clear that gods played a huge role in the decision making at the trial and all other life decisions of the citizens.
   Most of "The Eumenides" was entertaining; however, there were a few dreadful parts. Before the trial, the Furies spoke way too much. The Furies points could have been made in a one or two minute speech, instead of an eight to ten minute speech. Moreover, the way the Furies talked was annoying. I couldn't stand to listen to one of them start a line, and another one finish it. It was hard to tell who was talking because they wore masks. Furthermore, the Furies continual swaying movement drove me crazy.
   The actors and costumes were a perfect match for the play. The actors appeared very natural at their roles. They weren't too dramatic, but they weren't stoic either. The costumes were great as well. They had just enough clues to be able to tell who was who.
   Overall, the "perfectly cast" actors speak their words poetically throughout the play. In addition, it is refreshing to watch a play in which the old-fashioned props and costumes are used. Plus, I like the idea of religion playing a prominent part in the characters' lives, since most modern plays try to avoid religion. "The Eumenides" isn't just the greatest play of The Oresteia Trilogy, but one of the greatest plays of all time.




5. The Oresteia Trilogy, written by Aeschylus, consisted of three well written plays; Agamemnon, The Libation-Bearers, and The Furies. Even though Aeschylus lived in Athens from 525 until 456 B.C., he wrote the play to take place around 1250 B.C. Even though I struggled with the language, the characters had such strong feelings they made the play easier to understand. Aeschylus always gave his characters great emotional range, their feelings moved from one extreme to the other. For example, when Clytemnestra found out that Agamemnon had killed their daughter Iphigenia, she knew the only way to avenge him would be to kill him.
   Orestes plan to avenge his mother was complicated. The god Apollo, as well as Electra, thought Clytemnestra deserved to die because she killed her husband. Apollo thought it might help
   end the curse on the house of Atreus. Regardless, the Chorus thought Orestes' murder was much worse than the murder Clytemnestra committed. Orestes committed matricide, the murdering of one's mother. I liked this passage. I could relate what Orestes was going through, but on a different level. I know what it's like to be indifferent and have everybody expect you to do something, regardless of how you actually feel. Peer pressure is hard enough to deal with and worse if your beliefs aren't set in stone. Being confused and pressured made Orestes' character seem real to me.
   I would definitely recommend The Oresteia Trilogy to anyone as a spectacular play to read. The way the characters' emotions were portrayed and toyed with made the play come to life. I thought Aeschylus did a great job of bringing all of his characters, especially Orestes, to life. The plot was really well developed and made the play much more captivating to read. Overall, this is one of the best plays I have read in an extremely long time. Aeschylus definitely deserved all of his awards for being a playwright.

5 comments about Lucille: The Life of Lucille Ball.

1. I had been looking forward to this biography, and found myself quite disappointed by the result. The first red flag was a rookie mistake located on the second page of the introduction, and then another on the third (Buster Keaton didn't work for Sennett - five minutes of research would reveal this to a conscientious writer; nor were Lucille Ball and Vivian Vance the first female comedy team - Hal Roach gave us Todd & Pitts a good 20 years prior to Ball & Vance). When these clear mistakes are at the very beginning, one has to wonder what else is in error throughout the book (the topless photo purported to be Lucille, but clearly not, for instance).
   
   Aside from that, this book paints Lucille in a fairly monstrous light, with only glimmers of her generosity and kindness. She herself indicated that she wasn't a funny person, but that it was her writers who made her work SEEM funny, so that's not what's at issue here. The discussions of her seemingly endless tantrums, fits and petty jealousies are piled on until Lucille reads like "Lucy Dearest." Desi, Sr. and her children don't come off much better, and even Gary Morton, who loved her for the last 28 years of her life, doesn't emerge unscathed.
   
   I wanted to read an even-handed biography of Lucy, and a complete one, one that covered her early career in some detail and dealt with her life after I Love Lucy in more than just glancing copy. The bulk of the book is made up of her admittedly iconic 1950's series, but I don't feel as if I learned anything more about Lucille Ball than I knew before I opened the pages, and even more problematic, I don't know what, if any, of the work I can believe. This one is for the completists, I'm afraid, and not to be read as a definitive work on the complex woman who was Lucille Ball.



2. "Love Lucy" was a great book written by Lucille Ball and so was
   "Laughs, Luck...and Lucy: How I Came to Create the Most Popular Sitcom of All Time", by Jess Oppenheimer. "Lucille" by Kathleen Brady told the same stories that L. Ball and J. Oppenheimer told, but she gave more body to the characters and gave many more details in general. I've been listening to the book as I do my household chores and I'm enjoying the book so much that I'm performing quiet chores so I can resume listening to the biography. It's very good and so far I have only found one tiny flaw...Lucille Ball said that Vivian Vance did have to stay plump for the I love Lucy show (if I remember correctly) and Kathleen Brady said that Vance's agents claimed that was an untrue rumor. So either the agents knew it was true and didn't want to disclose the fact, or Lucille Ball told an untruth which doesn't make sense or K. Brady reported it incorrectly. I don't think it matters but I would guess that Vance's agents just didn't want to admit to the fact that their client agreed to stay overweight to keep the focus on L.B. For such a huge book...that's an insignificant detail so I think the book is honest and a great read or in my case a great listen.



3. There are some minor factual errors with regard to some of the TV series indicating that the author--an obvious admirer--was not a fan per se. This actually helps in terms of objectivity. The book is unflinching but warm, and is the sole book to really go in depth about Lucille's childhood and teen/young adult years. "Ball of Fire" and many others are shockingly un-new in their stoties and historical references. No one can really know "Lucille" after the fact but this book, and "Desilu" come as close as you canget.



4. When I was ten and heard that Lucy and Desi were divorcing, I was devastated. No one in my little village had ever divorced, and I did not know anyone who knew anyone who had. So, Lucy and Ricky, who were interchangeable in my mind with Lucy and Desi, were the first people I "knew" who took that drastic step. I couldn't figure out how they could be so happy on TV and still want to split.

   A few years later, when Lucy returned to television, along with Ethel, rechristened as Vivian, I kept longing for DesiRicky to show up. Of course he didn't. Later, I saw some of her early movies and became one of the three people in the US who loved her on the screen as Mame. Even though I appreciated her skill and talent, for me, she was always Lucy Riccardo. Somewhere along the line, though, I realized that Lucille Ball was more complex than her TV counterpart.

   Of the half-dozen books I've read about Lucy, which include the newly-released "Ball of Fire", a couple of the books about the series, and Vance's biography, Kathleen Brady's is my favorite. She comes closest to cracking the code, finding what drove Lucille Ball to the top of her profession.

   Brady treats her subject tenderly, but does whitewash the harder side of her character. Rather, she tries to bring the apparently incompatible parts of her personality together into one whole, very understandable person. As much as is possible, she succeeds.

   Where she is sure of details, she gives them. Where she is not, she offers alternate possibilities, for example, the unknown cause of Ball's paralysis that sent her home from NY and to bed for months or, on the more humorous side, exactly what happened the night that Tallulah Bankhead decided to disrobe during a production meeting of the LucyDesi Comedy Hour.

   Well-researched and well-written, this is mandatory reading for any die-hard Lucy fan and an excellent choice for anyone who intends reading only one book about America's most famous comedienne.




5. The Lucille Ball in Kathleen Brady's book, "Lucille: The Life of Lucille Ball" is a study of contradictions. Partly an homage to a star she clearly adores, partly an expose on Lucy's dark side, this book paints an incomplete and unsatisfying picture of America's premiere television comedianne.

   The Lucy in this book comes across both as a scrappy fighter early in her career, and a hardened soul at the end of it, which may very well be true, or not. It was difficult to discover the viewpoint of Lucy that the author was trying to take. At times, it was clearly injected with personal opinions and commentaries not warranted in the biography of someone else's life, both glowing and scandalous. And whereas the majority of the book takes up the years of Desilu's powerhold on the television industry, from I Love Lucy to Star Trek, it shortchanges both her early career and later career, almost as insignificant bookends to her highest pinnacle in the 1950's. Certainly, Lucy had a full, complete life, only some of which is shown here.

   However, there were some parts I did enjoy. Lucy's less-than-impressive movie career which eventually gave birth to her TV persona was interesting, as you root for her to make the transition earlier. Her undying devotion to Desi in the early years, despite mutual fits of jealousy and rage, made for a deepening look at their marriage. And the occasional parts that show her softer, kinder side were warm to read.

   Which leads to this thought. Clearly Lucy is loved country wide; were we ready to learn some negative things about the woman we cherished? Certainly not unknown, nor surprising to anyone who's read other things. The issue perhaps comes in balancing all viewpoints to present a clearer one, rather than being all over the board haphazardly.

   As for Lucie and Desi Arnaz, Jr.'s objections to the book were clear to me as I read through to the end. Kathleen Brady seemed to have a personal vendetta against these two, as she paints them very unfavorably as spoiled Hollywood rich kids. Nary a kind word was said about these two, which leads me to think they offered no assistance in creating this book, so a price was paid for their silence.

   In the end, I did not feel closer to Lucy than I had before reading this. I may suggest grabbing a bowl of popcorn, putting up your feet, and watching some classic episodes of I Love Lucy, to remember Lucy the way she wanted us to remember her, with a smile and a laugh.

2 comments about Imagining Shakespeare.

1. Another reviewer complains about this book's exquisite illustrations. I'd like to note that including them is not a frivolous choice, but a decision made because our images of Shakespeare often stem from exactly that -- images. Orgel is one of the top Shakespearean scholars around, and he does an incredible job outlining the Shakespeare we think we know, and how this imagined Shakespeare came to be known. Unlike many works on Shakespeare, Orgel bases his scholarship on the historical record, including physical artifacts such as the actual folios, and sculptures, and paintings.



2. I must say that this book does has a lot of pictures in it showing the aspects of Shakespear's world and plays. They are very good and intertaining but I must warn you that the book has a whole chapter with illustrations (in detail)of people having sex. The book is probably very good if you like reading text books, and don't mind these pictures, but I was just too grossed out. If you are teaching Lit in college and/or studying Shakespeare, this is probably the book that you should use, but you should flip through the book first (i.e: library, book store) to see if that is what you want on your book shelves.

5 comments about You Can Write Song Lyrics (You Can Write).

1. I have been reading this book dayly, making the exercises Terry Cox proposes, and all of this have worked for me, both to understand and improve my songwriting.



2. Let's face it "You Can Write Song Lyrics (You Can)" is such a delightful read that it can put the real passion of music into any heart. I disagree with anyone who says that there are things in life that can't be taught for a few reasons= I was deafened at 19 and am now past 55. I was headed for a career as a pro musician in my late teens. Terry Cox renewed flames that were dying inside me as I "forgot" how melodies and lyrics of many favorite songs went together. Maddening. Along comes this book and bang! I go back and reread those lyrics over and over, and more often than not, I recall beautiful music behind the lyrics. Magical. To whom would I recommend this book? Anyone that truly loves music.



3. 'You Can Write Song Lyrics' is a great book for anyone interested in stepping foot into the music biz as a lyric writer. Terry Cox reminds us of the importance of passion and self as a writer along with laying a strong foundation for formatting and putting our words into songs. This is a wonderful book and I highly recommend it to not only those interested in songwriting but also those who are already songwriters. Check it out!



4. You Can Write Song Lyrics is a good book for those looking to learn about songwriting. This book uses well know songs as examples which makes it easier to understand the lesson being taught. The author (Terri Cox) also gives very challenging exercises so you can use the skills you are learning.

   You Can Write Song Lyrics covers rhyming schemes, and includes exercises how to rhyme past that basic one syllable connection. Although you may 'think' that rhyming is easy...wait until you try these exercises! They are tough and quite fun!

   This book also talks about how to understand music jargon, how to work with others on songwriting, and how tempo affects your song.

   I was disappointed to see that, You Can Write Song Lyrics offers very little information about how to market your song, once it has been written. Other than that one small dislike, this book was really good.




5. There are some things in life that simply cannot be taught.

No comments about Aesthetics of the Opressed.

5 comments about Fashions of the Gilded Age, Volume 1: Undergarments, Bodices, Skirts, Overskirts, Polonaises, and Day Dresses 1877-1882.

1. I am very pleased with this book and I think it gives a load of information for a very reasonable price.
   
   The book (together with vol.2) is overfilled with all kinds of garments you can imagine and for each sort of garment there are always many styles.
   
   It is not directly a drafting book, it does not tell you how to draft your own bodice etc. by using your measurements, but the method of using the patterns and the enlarging rulers is very close to that and, as I think, it might produce a very good substitution for a custom-drafted dress with saving a lot of your time and being very simple to do. It is something between custom drafting and pre-sized patterns, because you create the garments by using your bust and back length measurement, which are the two most important measurements for making a garment suited to your proportions and it will probably need only little easy modifications like adding/substracting from waist and hip width and maybe some changes for the front length. But all possible and most frequent modifications are very well explained in the book.
   
   It is all written in such a way that even with no or little knowledge of drafting, you'll be able to produce a probably very well fitted garments.
   
   For a drafting professional, it's a good help when doing things like skirts, especially draped overskirts and all garments creating a shape or silhouette that is hard to figure out. Even if you won't use the patterns for enlarging and draft the things yourself, you can very well keep to the shape of the patterns as you can see, unlike in so many pattern books, NUMBERS.
   
   I think this book has the best ratio of the price and the information given of all costume book I've come through. It's a pity that there are no such books for earlier periods:-(



2. This is a great book for seamstresses with some experience(I think it would be too hard for beginners.It would be good if you have some comprehenesion on sizing(drafting patterns yourself for example)but that isn't even necessary.I think it would be easier though:)
   
   Frances Grimble gives clear instructions for changing patterns to size and even to different body shapes(large bust, short back etc.
   You do need to take some time for this, but well, you'll have an authentic pattern in your hands, how great is that?;)And there are so many in this book! I was having a very hard time finding real historical patterns in The Netherlands(so far found one french journal from 1902)and I feel like a kid in a candystore now.:)I <3 this book already.
   
   You can make a complete outfit, from undergarments to overgarments.
   
   If you have some sewing experience and you love this period it is really a great book!
   
   
   
   Amazon's service is excellent too. It didn't take very long for the item to arrive(from US to the Netherlands)(with one step faster shipping, expidited?)it was even a lot faster then the estimated arrival time.



3. This book is wonderful. I believe I own every book Frances Grimble has written and anxiously await more. The variety of patterns is amazing and allows the experienced sewer to create their own designs from various components, like sleeves and collars. This sure beats trying to decipher the patterns in an original 1890's issue of Harpers!



4. This book contains patterns for the following:
   corsets, hoopskirts and bustles (some)
   underclothing and negligee wear (quite a few)
   day and evening skirts (only about four)
   day bodices (quite a few)
   evening bodices (some)
   overskirts (some)
   polonaises (some)
   day dresses (quite a few)
   
   some = around ten
   quite a few = over 20
   
   I would recommend this book for anyone who likes victorian costuming. It not only works as a pattern book, but as a source book, having lots of pictures you can use for reference. Even if you just look through it, it really can help you understand the styles of that era.



5. The pictures and descriptions within the book are an excellent reference if you are researching and intending on recreating one of these beautiful designs. Advanced knowledge of sewing skills is a must for those who wish to recreate these (definantly not for the novice sewer). Frances Grimble, you've done it again. Please keep them coming. I will buy every book you put out.

No comments about How to Direct a Musical.

1 comments about Concert Tour Production Management.

1. I got this book for a marketing project for school, and in general it was a great help and gave me a lot of ideas, it didn't have some of the detailed numbers I was hoping for. I would have atleast like some examples for how much it costs to rent a truck or crew.

5 comments about Ebert's "Bigger" Little Movie Glossary.

1. If you're a movie fan, I mean a REAL movie fan who knows films by genre including the classics, this book's a winner. Over his years reviewing films,Ebert has collected his personal favorites of "movie cliches, stereotypes, obligatory scenes, hackneyed formulas, shopworn conventions and outdated archetypes." Ebert has also encouraged viewers to send him their favorite cliches in movies, so his latest movie glossary is his "BIGGER Little Movie Glossary." It's the kind of book you can leave next to your bed or favorite chair, and dip into for a few minutes to get some quick laughs. As you read, you find your head moving up and down in agreement and thinking, "Yeah, I know that! I remember that scene in such-and-such movie." Typical listing (and they each have a funny title)--"Fruit Cart!" defined as "any chase scene involving a foreign or ethnic locale...and the "certainty a fruit cart will be overturned during the change, and an angry peddler will run into the middle of the street to shake his first at the hero's departing vehicle." This book would make a great gift for friends who think they know it all when it comes to movies. It's hard to find, though, so I ordered it through Amazon.



2. Folks have been flocking to the Fleas and Itches to view the Flickers for a century, and everyone, if they have been to enough of them, begins to notice certain things:
   
   How this or that action, or personality trait, occurs over and over again, and how certain rules of behavior always are attributed to a certain type person, event, or whatever.
   
   There are also many rules regarding the act of watching a film, and the places that show them.
   
   Well, way back in the early 80's film critic Roger Ebert started writing about them, and giving them names in his newspaper column.
   
   This was so popular that it was included in his Movie Home Companions every year. Finally the idea was put into book form.
   
   The readership of ordinary filmgoers eagerly contributed their own examples, and the rest is history.
   
   I own a 2nd edition of the book ( 1st ed. 1994).
   
   Just to whet your appetite for this wonderful little book here are several brief examples of the formulas:
   
   Have you ever noticed that.....
   
   All movie bartenders, when first seen, are wiping the inside of a glass with a rag.
   
   99% of sex scenes show couples coupling for the first time.
   
   People in movies ALWAYS undress from the top down.
   
   AND
   
   Any theatre that accepts passes will invariably exclude their use for any movie worth seeing.
   
   This book makes for a fun addition to anyones book collection.



3. Well, not really a plot here, but this book is a collection of creative movie definitions concerning common clich?s and plot lines. Organized alphabetically based on contributions both from Roger Ebert and from others who sent him their own definitions, and containing seemingly random weird not that helpful illustrations interspersed throughout, at a little over one hundred pages there is room for quite a few definitions.
   
   Quote: "You go to enough different movies, you start to notice things. Like how every time there's a chase scene in an exotic locale, a fruit cart gets overturned . . . or how there are lots that would be over in five minutes, if all the characters weren't idiots."
   
   
   I like movies, movie reviews, and things of this nature, but maybe not quite enough to be completely entertained by this book. If you really REALLY like movies, probably good times will be had. My only recommendation otherwise would have been to have more specific movie examples so that one could see it in action if they chose, but I enjoyed how Ebert combined the definitions he wrote with ones that others had sent him.



4. It's not a glossary so much as a joke book ... a compilation of both Mr. Ebert's own list of cinematic cliches and those submitted by his readership. It's a great browser's book, something you can just open up to any page and start reading. I've taken to leaving my copy by the couch, so I can flip through it during commercials and see how many points the film's racked up since the last commercial.

   The only real problem with the book is the inherent flaw in having a book that features submissions ... quality is uneven, and a few cliches appear multiple times submitted by different people. This is balanced out by some very clever observations, patterns that I hadn't noticed before and which informed by later movie watching.

   It's not quite as good as "I Hated, Hated, Hated, HATED This Movie," but it's still a seriously funny book for anyone who's fed up with seeing the same movie made over and over again with different titles.




5. Ebert's "bigger little book" of movie cliches, stereotypes, obligatory scenes, etc. exposes the vast majority of movie directors/producers/studios as what they truly are: Dumb. But hey, learning just HOW dumb they can be has never been so much fun. You'll find yourself reading the book from cover to cover, nodding your head, saying, "I just saw that in a movie last week! Man, that was stupid." Ebert also gives credit to fans who have written in with their own entries. Loads of fun!

   228 pages