5 comments about The Plays of Anton Chekhov.

1. It neither surprises nor pleases me to learn that this is the current actor's standard for Chekhov translations in America. I bought this as a text for an acting class, and I kept it because Chekhov was a great writer and no translator can change that. However, the plays collected in this volume aren't treated as literature. If they were, we wouldn't get twelve of them; the one-act comic sketches were, as Schmidt well knows, only written to make money. They certainly weren't intended as filler for the longer, more important and famous plays, which can be found in virtually every other Chekhov collection. Yet Schmidt gives them the same attention, and I myself sometimes find it hard to tell the difference. There are one or two of the less famous plays that I admire, but there are also plays by Chekhov that this volume leaves out.
   If I were looking for an English version of Chekhov now, it would probably be an older volume, or perhaps a genuinely modern adaptation that made no claims to be an accurate rendering of the original Russian. I'm not categorically opposed to watching a performance of any one of these translations (I derived a rare enjoyment from performing them myself), but the Americanizing of the dialogue has chafed actors and directors alike, and I hardly think it was worth the effort.
   To judge by the cover of this book, one would think its contents profoundly ugly.



2. This book arrived promptly in new condition. It is the best translation of Chekhov's plays I have ever read. Our play-reading group enjoyed reading it together.



3. Renowned Director and Chekhov afficionado David Cromer swears by this translation of Chekhov's greatest (and lesser-known as well) works. I agree, its truly the most accessible translation for the American mouth I've ever read/performed. Perfect for monologue auditions, or productions of your own. ACTORS, STUDENTS AND SCHOLARS ALIKE SHOULD ALL OWN THIS TRANSLATION!



4. Although the author does a very good job putting the text of the plays into the modern English vernacular, I feel as though the works have had their flavor removed. If you are a purist, like I am, stick to the "old" translation.



5. I haven't read Chekhov's plays in Russian so I can't say anything about the translation except that it is very readable.

   Chekhov had his own unique style in that his plays were usually mere verbal interaction with most significant action taking place offstage. Even though most of his plays, especially his four act plays, take place at rich, country houses far removed from any sort of normal life, he seems to pick out timeless themes of humanness in several characters and weave them together into an almost plotless commentary. The fact that his plays have endured as long as they have are a testament to his genius and his skill at seeing timeless ideas.

   Chekhov's long plays are always revered and remembered as classics but this collection gives the reader a chance to see what an unbelievable short play writer he was. They have their own special feel apart from his longer works and give short little insights to the comedy and often comedic tragedy of human nature and human absurdity.

   The Cherry Orchard, the Seagull, and Uncle Vanya are classic four acts by Chekhov but don't overlook Ivanov. It was one of his earlier ones and one of my favorites. Chekhov does a good job of making several unique characters and having them react around the central situation and an older man and a younger woman give you an interesting view at an interesting love story.

   For short plays I would recommend "The Bear", "The Proposal", and "A Reluctant Tragic Hero". Especially in the Proposal Chekhov's comedy is especially portrayed.

   This collection, in general, an all-around good read. Well worth reading this collection of one of the best playwrights.

5 comments about Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (Philosophical Library Series).

1. I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle. I think Aristotle's ethics is his most seminal work in philosophy. In the early 1960's virtue ethics came to fore. It is a retrieval of Aristotle. It has very close parallels to the ancient Chinese philosophy of Confucius and the modern philosophy espoused in the 1970's called Communitarianism.
   
   For Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics, (EN) is about human life in an embodied state. Area of inquirery for EN is "good" this is his phenomenology. What does "good" mean? He suggests good means "a desired end." Something desirable. Means towards these ends. Such as money is good, so one can buy food to eat because "eating is good." In moral philosophy distinction between "intrinsic good" vs. "instrumental good." Instrumental good towards a desire is "instrumental good" like money. Thus, money is an "instrumental good" for another purpose because it produces something beyond itself. Instrumental good means because it further produces a good, "intrinsic good" is a good for itself, "for the sake of" an object like money. "Intrinsic good" for him is "Eudemonia=happiness." This is what ethics and virtues are for the sake of the organizing principle. Eudemonia=happiness. Today we think of happiness as a feeling. It is not a feeling for Aristotle. Best translation for eudaimonia is "flourishing" or "living well." It is an active term and way of living for him thus, "excellence." Ultimate "intrinsic good" of "for the sake of." Eudaimonia is the last word for Aristotle. Can also mean fulfillment. Idea of nature was thought to be fixed in Greece convention is a variation. What he means is ethics is loose like "wealth is good but some people are ruined by wealth." EN isn't formula but a rough outline. Ethics is not precise; the nature of subject won't allow it. When you become a "good person" you don't think it out, you just do it out of habit!
   
   You can have ethics without religion for Aristotle. Nothing in his EN is about the afterlife. He doesn't believe in the universal good for all people at all times like Plato and Socrates. The way he thought about character of agent, "thinking about the good." In addition, Aristotle talked about character traits. Good qualities of a person who would act well. Difference between benevolent acts and a benevolent person. If you have good character, you don't need to follow rules. Aretç=virtue, in Greek not religious connotation but anything across the board meaning "excellence" high level of functioning, a peak. Like a musical virtuoso. Ethical virtue is ethical excellence, which is the "good like." In Plato, ethics has to do with quality of soul defining what to do instead of body like desires and reason. For Aristotle these are not two separate entities.
   
   To be good is how we live with other people, not just focus on one individual. Virtue can't be a separate or individual trait. Socrates said same the thing. Important concept for Aristotle, good upbringing for children is paramount if you don't have it, you are a lost cause. Being raised well is "good fortune" a child can't choose their upbringing. Happenstance is a matter of chance.
   
   Pleasure cannot be an ultimate good. Part of the "good life" involves external goods like money, one can't attain "good life" if one is poor and always working. Socrates said material goods don't matter, then he always mooched off of his friends! Aristotle surmises that the highest form of happiness is contemplation. In Aristotle's Rhetoric, he lists several ingredients for attaining eudaimonia. Prosperity, self-sufficiency, etc., is important, thus, if you are not subject to other, competing needs. A long interesting list. It is common for the hoi polloi to say pleasure=happiness. Aristotle does not deny pleasure is good; however, it is part of a package of goods. Pleasure is a condition of the soul. In the animal world, biological beings react to pleasure and pain as usual. Humans as reasoning beings must pursue knowledge to fulfill human nature. It must be pleasurable to seek knowledge and other virtues and if it is not there is something wrong according to Aristotle. These are the higher pleasures and so you may have to put off lower pleasures for the sake of attaining "higher pleasures."
   
   Phronçsis= "intelligence," really better to say "practical wisdom." The word practical helps here because the word Phronçsis for Aristotle is a term having to do with ethics, the choices that are made for the good. As a human being, you have to face choices about what to do and not to do. Phronçsis is going to be that capacity that power of the soul that when it is operating well will enable us to turn out well and that is why it is called practical wisdom. The practically wise person is somebody who knows how to live in such a way so that their life will turn out well, in a full package of "goods." For Aristotle, Phronçsis is not deductive or inductive knowledge like episteme; Phronçsis is not a kind of rational knowledge where you operate in either deduction or induction, you don't go thru "steps" to arrive at the conclusion. Therefore, Phronçsis is a special kind of capacity that Aristotle thinks operates in ethics. Only if you understand what Aristotle means by phronesis do you get a hold on the concept. My way of organizing it, it is Phronçsis that is a capacity that enables the virtues to manifest themselves.
   
   What are the virtues? Phronçsis is the capacity of the soul that will enable the virtues to fulfill themselves. Virtue ethics is the characteristics of a person that will bring about a certain kind of moral living, and that is exactly what the virtues are. The virtues are capacities of a person to act well. All of the virtues can be organized by way of this basic power of the soul called Phronçsis. There are different virtues, but it is the capacity of Phronçsis that enables these virtues to become activated. Basic issue is to find the "mean" between extremes; this is how Aristotle defines virtues.
   
   Humans are not born with the virtues; we learn them and practice them habitually. "We reach our complete perfection through habit." Aristotle says we have a natural potential to be virtuous and through learning and habit, we attain them. Learn by doing according to Aristotle and John Dewey. Then it becomes habitual like playing a harp. Learning by doing is important for Aristotle. Hexis= "state," "having possession." Theoria= "study." The idea is not to know what virtue is but to become "good." Emphasis on finding the balance of the mean. Each virtue involves four basic points.
   
   1. Action or circumstance. Such as risk of losing one's life.
   2. Relevant emotion or capacity. Such as fear and pain.
   3. Vices of excess and vices of deficiency in the emotions or the capacities. Such as cowardice is the excess vice of fear, recklessness is the excess deficiency.
   4. Virtue as a "mean" between the vices and deficiencies. Such as courage as the "mean."
   
   No formal rule or "mean" it depends on the situation and is different for different people as well. For example--one should eat 3,000 calories a day. Well depends on the health and girth of the person, and what activity they are engaged in. It is relative to us individually.
   All Aristotle's qualifications are based on individual situations and done with knowledge of experience. Some things are not able to have a "mean" like murder and adultery because these are not "goods."
   Akrasia= "incontinence" really "weakness of the will. Socrates thought that all virtues are instances of intelligence or Phronçsis. Aristotle criticizes Socrates idea of virtue, virtue is not caused by state of knowledge it is more complicated. Aristotle does not think you have to have a reasoned principle in the mind and then do what is right, they go together.
   
   The distinctions between continent and incontinent persons, and moderate (virtue) and immoderate (not virtuous) persons is as follows:
   
   1. Virtue. Truly virtuous people do not struggle to be virtuous, they do it effortlessly, very few people in this category, and most are in #2 and #3.
   2. Ethical strength. Continence. We know what is right thing to do but struggle with our desires.
   3. Ethical weakness. This is akrasia incontinence. Happens in real life.
   4. Vice. The person acts without regret of his bad actions.
   
   What does Aristotle mean by "fully virtuous"? Ethical strength is not virtue in the full sense of the term. Ethical weakness is not a full vice either. This is the critique against Socrates idea that "Knowledge equals virtue." No one can knowingly do the wrong thing. Thus, Socrates denies appetites and desires. Aristotle understands that people do things that they know are wrong, Socrates denies this. Socrates says if you know the right thing you will do it, Aristotle disagrees. The law is the social mechanism for numbers 2, 3, 4. A truly virtuous person is their own moral compass.
   
   I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy. Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.



2. Unreadable. A curiosity. A long way from English. The difficult made impossible. Many sentences, long and short, like, "So let these things have been spoken of just this much." Page 9. The footnotes are somewhat clearer than the text.



3. I've read and taught the Nicomachean Ethics several times in translation, and working through it this time with Joe Sachs' exceptional translation is what for the first time brought the urgency and interest of the text alive for me. I'd always said, in response to student complaints, something like: I know that the book itself, in style, is kind of boring and dry, but the subject matter could not be more important so try and look past that. With this translation, I didn't need to say that. You feel the urgency and importance of the subject in the writing itself. Joe Sachs has done a remarkable thing in bringing this text -- easily one of the most important philosophical works ever written -- to life.
   
   As if that weren't enough, he has also written an excellent and very short introduction to the text that goes a long way towards overcoming many of the commmon misunderstandings of Aristotle's ethics, especially misconceptions tied to the Latin influences on translations of the text. Without any effort to give a "definitive" and inevitably partial account of the text as a whole, he confines himself to addressing three central concepts -- habit, the mean, and the noble -- shows how these have led many readers of the text astray, and points readers towards the passages in Aristotle that can overcome or resolve some of the basic misunderstandings (incidentally, one of these misunderstandings is evident in another review of this translation by FrKurt Mesick, and I can only assume he either didn't read the intro, or he disagreed with it in favor of more standard "textbook" interpretations of Aristotle, or that he is commenting on another translation and just happened to include his review under this one). Along the way, Sachs shows that the common reading of Aristotle as a kind of reformed or anti-Platonist is just false -- and that Aristotle's ethics is richer and more compelling than is usually thought precisely because of the elements of Platonism that Aristotle wisely retains.



4. Aristotle was a philosopher in search of the chief good for human beings. This chief good is eudaimonia, which is often translated as 'happiness' (but can also be translated as 'thriving' or 'flourishing'). Aristotle sees pleasure, honour and virtue as significant 'wants' for people, and then argues that virtue is the most important of these.
   
   In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle makes the claim that happiness is something which is both precious and final. This seems to be so because it is a first principle or ultimate starting point. For, it is for the sake of happiness that we do everything else, and we regard the cause of all good things to be precious and divine. Moreover, since happiness is an activity of the soul in accordance with complete and perfect virtue, it is necessary to consider virtue, as this will be the best way of studying happiness.
   
   How many of us today speak of happiness and virtue in the same breath? Aristotle's work in the Nicomachean Ethics is considered one of his greatest achievements, and by extension, one of the greatest pieces of philosophy from the ancient world. When the framers of the American Declaration of Independence were thinking of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, there is little doubt they had an acquaintance with Aristotle's work connecting happiness, virtue, and ethics together.
   
   When one thinks of ethical ideas such as an avoidance of extremes, of taking the tolerant or middle ground, or of taking all things in moderation, one is tapping into Aristotle's ideas. It is in the Nicomachean Ethics that Aristotle proposes the Doctrine of the Mean - he states that virtue is a 'mean state', that is, it aims for the mean or middle ground. However, Aristotle is often misquoted and misinterpreted here, for he very quickly in the text disallows the idea of the mean to be applied in all cases. There are things, actions and emotions, that do not allow the mean state. Thus, Aristotle tends to view virtue as a relative state, making the analogy with food - for some, two pounds of meat might be too much food, but for others, it might be too little. The mean exists between the state of deficiency, too little, and excessiveness, too much.
   
   Aristotle proposes many different examples of virtues and vices, together with their mean states. With regard to money, being stingy and being illiberal with generosity are the extremes, the one deficient and the other excessive. The mean state here would be liberality and generosity, a willingness to buy and to give, but not to extremes. Anger, too, is highlighted as having a deficient state (too much passivity), an excessive state (too much passion) and a mean state (a gentleness but firmness with regard to emotions).
   
   Aristotle states that one of the difficulties with leading a virtuous life is that it takes a person of science to find the mean between the extremes (or, in some cases, Aristotle uses the image of a circle, the scientist finding the centre). Many of us, being imperfect humans, err on one side or the other, choosing in Aristotle's words, the lesser of two evils. Aristotle's wording here, that a scientist is the only one fully capable of virtue, has a different meaning for scientist - this is a pre-modern, pre-Enlightenment view; for Aristotle, the person of science is one who is capable of observation and calculation, and this can take many different forms.
   
   Aristotle uses different kinds of argumentation in the Nicomachean Ethics. He uses a dialectical method, as well as a functional method. In the dialectical method, there are opposing ideas held in tension, whose interactions against each other yield a result - this is often how the mean between extremes is derived. However, there are other times that Aristotle seems to prefer a more direct, functional approach. Both of these methods lead to the same understanding for Aristotle's sense of the rational - that humanity's highest or final good is happiness.
   
   There is a discussion of the human soul (for this is where virtue and happiness reside). Aristotle argues that virtue is not a natural state; we are not born with nor do we acquire through any natural processes virtue, but rather through 'habitation', an embedding process or enculturation that makes these a part of our soul. However, it is not sufficient for Aristotle's virtue that one merely function as a virtuous person or that virtuous things be done. This is not a skill, but rather an art, and to be virtuous, one must live virtuously and act virtuously with intention as well as form.
   
   Of course, one of the implications here is that virtue is a quantifiable thing, that periodically resurfaces in later philosophies. How do we calculate virtue?
   
   This is a difficult question, and not one that Aristotle answers in any definitive way. However, more important than this is the key difference that Aristotle displayed setting himself apart from his tutor Plato; rather than seeing the possession of 'the good' or 'virtue' as the highest ideal, Aristotle is concerned with the practical aspects, the ethics of this. Based on Aristotle's lectures in Athens in the fourth century BCE, this remains one of the most important works on ethical and moral philosophy in history.



5. Aristotle was a philosopher in search of the chief good for human beings. This chief good is eudaimonia, which is often translated as 'happiness' (but can also be translated as 'thriving' or 'flourishing'). Aristotle sees pleasure, honour and virtue as significant 'wants' for people, and then argues that virtue is the most important of these.
   
   In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle makes the claim that happiness is something which is both precious and final. This seems to be so because it is a first principle or ultimate starting point. For, it is for the sake of happiness that we do everything else, and we regard the cause of all good things to be precious and divine. Moreover, since happiness is an activity of the soul in accordance with complete and perfect virtue, it is necessary to consider virtue, as this will be the best way of studying happiness.
   
   How many of us today speak of happiness and virtue in the same breath? Aristotle's work in the Nicomachean Ethics is considered one of his greatest achievements, and by extension, one of the greatest pieces of philosophy from the ancient world. When the framers of the American Declaration of Independence were thinking of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, there is little doubt they had an acquaintance with Aristotle's work connecting happiness, virtue, and ethics together.
   
   When one thinks of ethical ideas such as an avoidance of extremes, of taking the tolerant or middle ground, or of taking all things in moderation, one is tapping into Aristotle's ideas. It is in the Nicomachean Ethics that Aristotle proposes the Doctrine of the Mean - he states that virtue is a 'mean state', that is, it aims for the mean or middle ground. However, Aristotle is often misquoted and misinterpreted here, for he very quickly in the text disallows the idea of the mean to be applied in all cases. There are things, actions and emotions, that do not allow the mean state. Thus, Aristotle tends to view virtue as a relative state, making the analogy with food - for some, two pounds of meat might be too much food, but for others, it might be too little. The mean exists between the state of deficiency, too little, and excessiveness, too much.
   
   Aristotle proposes many different examples of virtues and vices, together with their mean states. With regard to money, being stingy and being illiberal with generosity are the extremes, the one deficient and the other excessive. The mean state here would be liberality and generosity, a willingness to buy and to give, but not to extremes. Anger, too, is highlighted as having a deficient state (too much passivity), an excessive state (too much passion) and a mean state (a gentleness but firmness with regard to emotions).
   
   Aristotle states that one of the difficulties with leading a virtuous life is that it takes a person of science to find the mean between the extremes (or, in some cases, Aristotle uses the image of a circle, the scientist finding the centre). Many of us, being imperfect humans, err on one side or the other, choosing in Aristotle's words, the lesser of two evils. Aristotle's wording here, that a scientist is the only one fully capable of virtue, has a different meaning for scientist - this is a pre-modern, pre-Enlightenment view; for Aristotle, the person of science is one who is capable of observation and calculation, and this can take many different forms.
   
   Aristotle uses different kinds of argumentation in the Nicomachean Ethics. He uses a dialectical method, as well as a functional method. In the dialectical method, there are opposing ideas held in tension, whose interactions against each other yield a result - this is often how the mean between extremes is derived. However, there are other times that Aristotle seems to prefer a more direct, functional approach. Both of these methods lead to the same understanding for Aristotle's sense of the rational - that humanity's highest or final good is happiness.
   
   There is a discussion of the human soul (for this is where virtue and happiness reside). Aristotle argues that virtue is not a natural state; we are not born with nor do we acquire through any natural processes virtue, but rather through 'habitation', an embedding process or enculturation that makes these a part of our soul. However, it is not sufficient for Aristotle's virtue that one merely function as a virtuous person or that virtuous things be done. This is not a skill, but rather an art, and to be virtuous, one must live virtuously and act virtuously with intention as well as form.
   
   Of course, one of the implications here is that virtue is a quantifiable thing, that periodically resurfaces in later philosophies. How do we calculate virtue?
   
   This is a difficult question, and not one that Aristotle answers in any definitive way. However, more important than this is the key difference that Aristotle displayed setting himself apart from his tutor Plato; rather than seeing the possession of 'the good' or 'virtue' as the highest ideal, Aristotle is concerned with the practical aspects, the ethics of this. Based on Aristotle's lectures in Athens in the fourth century BCE, this remains one of the most important works on ethical and moral philosophy in history.

5 comments about Jazz Age Beauties: The Lost Collection of Ziegfeld Photographer Alfred Cheney Johnston.

1. This book is gorgeous. The photos are reproduced quite well, and the book looks and feels like quality. Included is a nice history of Ziegfeld Follies, along with brief biographies of many of the women.
   
   Julie Newmar provides a fascinating Foreword (her mother was in the Ziegfeld Follies and posed for photographer Alfred Cheney Johnston--as did a teenage Newmar). We also learn much about photographer Johnston.
   
   The highlight of the book for me, though, is the photographs (some are nudes) of actresses, including Renee Adoree, Adrienne Ames, Tallulah Bankhead, Theda Bara, Lina Basquette, Clara Bow, Louise Brooks, Billie Burke, Norma Shearer, Claudette Colbert, Betty Compton, Dolores Costello, Marion Davies, Claudia Dell, Billie Dove, Jeanne Eagels, Mary Eaton, and more.
   
   Like George Hurrell, Johnston was a true artist. His work makes these beautiful women immortal.



2. This is a spectacular book in every respect but one - it's size. The photos are fantastic, the layout is fantastic, the quality of its production is top drawer, everything about it is classy and well refined, but it's a downright unusual size for a book of this type, and that's why I only give it four stars.
   
   This needed to be in a large format to fully appreciate the photos and the beautiful layout work, but instead, it's sized about the same as most hardback novels, and when you place four photos on a page of that size, the images tend to be very small and you lose the overall impact of those photos.
   
   I highly recommend this one, get the hardback while you can before being forced into a reprint paperback, but I would've prefered the book be a sized more in keeping with most art and photography books.



3. the book is beautifully designed and printed. the ziegfeld girls, many of whom are familiar, are all gorgeous.. it's a window into the roaring twenties and the spectacular beauties of the jazz age.



4. Obviously a wonderful collection of images with historical and insightful text accompanying. Nonetheless, as a photographer, I was moderately disappointed with the manner in which the images were presented. The images are all presented in a sepia tone which I doubt is true for all of the originals. More concerning, however, is that most of the images lack the sharpness and fine detail which was undoubtedly present in many of the originals. While one reviewer compliments the "soft focus" techniques, I have seen several of the images before in very sharp focus with fabulous detail. To soften any of the images for publication for any reason betrays the brilliance which Alfred Cheney Johnston displayed in creating the images. It is still a wonderful collection.



5. Thank you Mr.Hudovernik for this lovely book. As a photographer and fan of the 20's jazz age photography. I think Mr Johnston's photos show that perfectly. I have been a fan of his work since I first saw all of the beautiful portraits he shot of the Ziegfeld women and the unknown beauties he photographed. He was a true master posing and capturing the beautiful women he had the pleasure of working with.
   
   This book is a beautiful history of him and his relation with the Ziegfeld Follies. Its very informative and not to mention a beautiful photo album of his finest work. If you are a fan of the golden era and the 20's please get this book. Thank you Mr.Hudovernik and thank you Alfred Cheney Johnston for leaving behind such beautiful work.

No comments about Pygmalion.

1 comments about Puppet Planet: The Most Amazing Puppet-Making Book in the Universe.

1. John Kennedy has really out done himsef with this book. There is an overwhelming wealth of ideas and techniques included. Not to mention step-by-step detailed instructions and colorful photos to walk you through it. This book would be great for a budding puppeteer, teacher,or anyone interested in arts and crafts. Of all the puppet books I have viewed, this one would be in my top 5 to recommend.

5 comments about Classical Ballet Technique.

1. Highly recommend this book for any level dancer wishing to improve. The photograghs illustrate correct and incorrect technique. This book is full of photographs, illustrating the different styles of ballet and up close photos of feet and hands, etc.to help a beginner understand the details of ballet. Movements are broken down with inch by inch progression as a ballerina leaps through the air or executes a pirouette. Also explains desirable physical attributes of a professional ballerina. This book was recommended to me by my instructor who was a professional ballerina in the Boston Ballet.



2. I bought it around the time when I first started ballet at the age of 15. I was kinda clueless about all the terms...but the pictures were so inspiring!
   
   Now as a teacher, its an invaluable book. Full of pictures breaking down steps into clear bits. Wonderful!



3. This book is one of the best books I have ever seen. I like to call it my "ballet bible" because it is a perfect reference for ballet dancers and teachers. I love how every step is precisely explained and pictured with photographs of excellent dancers executing every movement perfectly. This book is excellent for all intermediate-Advanced dancers and teachers. I would recommend this book to beginners as well, not so that they can learn steps, but as a reference tool for steps, poses, terms and concepts that they have already learned in their ballet class. I have noticed that some steps are labeled differently then I have ever heard them before. If you come across any of the terms like this then it is best to ask you ballet teacher what they call the step (then you can even write it in the book). Some teachers call things differently than other teachers and your teacher may call a step differently than the book and that is okay. At any rate labeled differently or not...the steps are executed the same way and this book makes for the perfect reference or "Ballet Bible"! A+++



4. This is an amazing piece of work and a book well-thumbed by myself and my adolescent pupils. It explains the differing uses of the basic French terminology in the Italian/Russian/French/English schools VERY CLEARLY and the hundreds of photos are really helpful when breaking down a new step in class. This book is not suitable for beginners or adults/parents who haven't done lots of serious training themselves. It is another book that should be on every ballet teacher's bookshelf and be made available to all vocational students.



5. This book was great! It's all photos that show you the correct and incorrect way to do almost every step you can think of!! Plie, tondue, jete, frappe, glissade, pirouettes, fouette, grande jete, arabesque, devlope, I could go on and on!
   
   The only thing that could be a bit confusing, was that they had a few different kinds of techniques, which is good, but if you don't know which technique you are, it can be confusing....just to warn people who are new to the dance world.
   
   But I DEFINITELY recommend it!!!!! Half.com sells it for cheaper.

5 comments about Sugared & Spiced 100 Monologues for Girls: Monologues for Girls.

1. These are very smart monologues. This collection offers a fresh perspective. Excellent workshop material and a great read. I love the humor. Please write more! We need more great source material.



2. I ordered this book to use for auditions that require 1-2 minute monologues and was greatly disapointed. The 100 monlogues, although funny, are not ideal for what I was looking for. I couldn't find any serious pieces throughout the entire book. Another thing, was that there didn't seem to be any variety in the style of the writing. All in all I thought it was a good product, but not at all what I needed. [Hopefully this helped someone!]



3. The suggestion in the Foreword about creating a personal back story is sophisticated and critical. Much of acting is communicating beyond the meaning of the words. I also like the focus on young women. For starters, I think it would be difficult to get a young guy to participate in monologues with the same fervor as girls. Secondly, I feel Mary Depner, an experienced former drama teacher, reveals in her other book "100 Echo Booming Monologues for Teens" that she has a better grasp on the female perspective than for the male. In any case I draw the same conclusion here as I did in reviewing that collection: There are real situations that happen outside of the classroom and the author is giving teenagers words they perhaps would have difficulty finding on their own to express how they feel.
   
   At first I was worried that these might lack depth, but gradually the monologues worked into more difficult subjects. "I'd Rather Be" gets kids thinking not just about their fathers' jobs but what it means to be satisfied in life. "Under Where" explores the frustration of having a brother or a sister; "Ice Cream Sunday" describes a bittersweet memory the speaker has of the time when she was living with her mom. Grandfather's funeral, being an adopted child, having a brother confined to a hospital, mother's boyfriend who drinks too much--are among the many terrific topics.
   
   Perhaps a few punch lines are overly clever, but I have to believe that might make the pieces particularly appealing to younger readers. My favorite of that type is "My Crazy Armpits." But one of the best of the hundred is "Wedding Bells" in which a girl worries about her mom's feelings at her father's remarriage: "She's acting like she's 100 percent okay with this. Just fine and dandy. But...I have this weird feeling that she is going to freak tomorrow, when she has to drop me off at the church. The SAME church that she and my dad were married in about 20 years ago!" Just reading this my heart is breaking.
   
   As adults we think back on our education a little differently with each different stage of our subsequent life. When looking for a job, perhaps realizing the limitations of being an English major; when raising kids, wishing we had had more psychology. My ongoing regret is that I didn't have more theatrical experience when I was younger. The ability to get up in front of a group, hold their interest, and express feelings you and your audience have, are critical no matter what our profession, no matter what our stage in life. That's my monologue.
   
   I don't like the "Sugared & Spiced" title. It sounds cute and passive for a collection that is so self-affirming and "real life." "Bet Your Dog, It's a Monologue" might have worked, though it doesn't reference the "girl perspective." A friend of mine did a performance piece at the Minneapolis Fringe Festival called "Does This Monologue Make Me Look Fat." I rather prefer something like that because choosing and presenting a monologue has to be something like selecting a new dress. Each of the choices has some attractive feature, but some of the dresses may be more than that. The monologues, like dresses, may enable others to see the presenter in whole new ways. The absolute right one, make her feel special to herself.



4. I bought this book for my daughter to help her with her drama class. It worked wonders for both of us. The stories were short and easy for her to play out different character traits with the lines. We had a lot of fun reading it. She now picks out a monologue every night and acts it's out for the family. This book was a tremendous boost for her.



5. I teach remedial reading and I think that the monologues in this book would be a great way to model reading for my students. The dialogue provides many emotive cues and they can practice reading these with themselves for a work period etc...

5 comments about Shakespeare's Sonnets (Folger Shakespeare Library).

1. Shakespeare's Sonnets come from the Bard's deepest thoughts, his passions, suffering and the expression of the ultimate Joy of Beauty, Poetry and Love. Here are the words of a suffering soul, in love with "someone" much younger than himself, thus his references to age being no barrier to true Love in many of the verses.
   
   All or most scholars agree, the Sonnets were written about and to a single person. The argument, of course, is who this person was...Oscar Wilde speculated the object of the Master's heart was a young male actor, due to the law, had to play all the female parts as acting in the 16th century was purly a man's job.
   
   Shakespeare himself has become a mystery as to his true identity for many years. Interestingly, Sigmund Freud's "free time", was devoted to revealing the Bard's true identity.
   
   For me, when reading the Sonnets, Who wrote them or Who they were written For makes no difference. Because the Sonnets are the most beautiful Ode to Poetry, the Muse and Real Love and its Tragedy, that all too often, is true Love's end result.
   
   This particular edition claims to be the best study of the Sonnets and the Bard himself. This is perhaps true, but the verses have not changed in 500 years.
   
   
   Over the last three nights, reading or more acurately 're-reading' these wonderful verses, my admiration for the English language, its beauty and cadence, its ability for subtle irony and truth is astounding.
   
   One of my favourites: LXXV.
   
   "So are you to my thoughts, as food for life,
   Or as sweet-season'd showers are to the ground:
   And for the peace of you I hold such strife
   As 'twixt a miser and his wealth is found:
   Now proud as an enjoyer, and anon
   Doubting the flinching age will steal his treasure;
   Now counting best to be with you alone,
   Then better'd that the world see my pleasure:
   Sometime all full with feasting on your sight,
   And by-and-by clean starved for a look;
   Possessing or pursuing no delight,
   Save what is had or must from you be took.
   Thus do I pine and surfeit day by day;
   Or gluttoning on all, or all the away."
   
   "Feasting on your sight", just to see (her) brings on so much joy.
   
   No delight... but saving her image in his mind like a glutton, a wanting, a Love deep and experienced from afar...
   
   Merely to remind yourself of the beauty of the English language read the Bard's Sonnets and Poems.
   
   A gift.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   



2. I too was disappointed that the Kindle edition was not complete. I wrote to Amazon about it, and got nice apology and a refund. So for a while we readers may become the default proofreaders. That is not terribly surprising as Amazon brings 91,000 books online. It would be good if they could let us know when a fix is made to a particular book. I certainly want to get this one for my Kindle.



3. I just received my Kindle today. Thusfar, I'm quite pleased with the device but my first digital purchase is a disappointment. The Amazon description states the following:
   
   Full explanatory notes conveniently placed on the page facing each sonnet
   
   * A brief introduction to each sonnet, providing insight into its possible meaning
   
   * An index of first lines
   
   * An essay by Professor Lynne Magnusson, a leading Shakespeare scholar, providing a modern perspective on the poems
   
   * Illustrations from the Folger Shakespeare Library's vast holdings of rare books.
   
   None of this is true. I suspect that Amazon's editors have failed to see that the Digireads.com editions of various books differ from the paper editions.



4. Thy merit hath my duty strongly knit,
   To thee I send this written embassage,
   To witness duty, not to show my wit.
   
   (Sonnet 26.)
   
   How to do justice to the legacy of literary history's greatest mind - moreover in such a limited review? Forget Goethe's "universal genius" and his rebel contemporary Schiller; forget the 19th century masters; forget contemporary literature: with the possible (!) exception of three Greek gentlemen named Aischylos, Sophocles and Euripides, a certain Frenchman called Poquelin (a/k/a Moliere), and that infamous Irishman Oscar Wilde, there's more wit in a single line of Shakespeare's than in an entire page of most other, even great, authors' works. And I'm not saying this in ignorance of, or in order to slight any other writer: it's precisely my admiration of the world's literary giants, past and present, that makes me appreciate Shakespeare even more - and that although I'm aware that he repeatedly borrowed from pre-existing material and that even the (sole) authorship of the works published under his name isn't established beyond doubt. For ultimately, the only thing that matters to me is the brilliance of those works themselves; and quite honestly, the mysteries continuing to enshroud his person, to me, only enhance his larger-than-life stature.
   
   The precise dating of Shakespeare's sonnets - like other poets', a response to the 1591 publication of Sir Philip Sidney's "Astrophil and Stella" - is an even greater guessing game than that of his plays: although #138 and #144 (slightly modified) appeared in 1599's "Passionate Pilgrim," most were probably circulated privately, and written years before their first - unauthorized, though still authoritative - 1609 publication; possibly beginning in 1592-1593.
   
   Format-wise, they adopt the Elizabethan fourteen-line-structure of three quatrains of iambic pentameters expressing a series of increasingly intense ideas, resolved in a closing couplet; with an abab-cdcd-efef-gg rhyme form. (Sole exceptions: #99 - first quatrain amplified by one line - #126 - six couplets & only twelve lines total - #145 - written in tetrameter - and #146 - omission of the second line's beginning; the subject of a lasting debate.) Their order is thematic rather than chronological, although beyond the fact that the first 126 are addressed to a young man - maybe the Earl of Pembroke or Southampton, maybe Sir Robert Dudley, the natural son of Queen Elizabeth's "Sweet Robin," the Earl of Leicester - (the first seventeen, possibly commissioned by the addressee's family, pressing his marriage and production of an heir), and ##127-152 (or 127-133 and 147-152) to an exotic woman of questionable virtues only known as "The Dark Lady," even in that respect much remains unclear; including the nature of Shakespeare's relationship with the two main addressees, regarding which the sonnets' often ambiguous metaphors invoke much speculation. #145 is probably addressed to Shakespeare's wife; the closing couplet plays on her maiden name ("['I hate' from] hate away she threw And saved my life, [saying 'not you']:" "Hathaway - Anne saved my life"), several others contain puns on the name Will and its double meaning(s) (exactly fourteen in the naughty #135: "Whoever hath her wish, thou hast thy Will;" and seven in the similarly mischievous #136), and the last two draw on the then-popular Cupid theme. Sometimes, placement seems linked to contents, e.g., in #8 (music: an octave has eight notes), #12 and #60 (time: twelve hours to both day and night; sixty minutes to an hour); and in the famous #55, which praises poetry's everlasting power and as whose never-expressly-named subject Shakespeare himself emerges in a comparison with Horace's Ode 3.30 - in turn written in first person singular and thus, denoting its own author as the builder of its "monument more lasting than bronze" ("Exegi monumentum aere perennius") - as well as through the number "5"'s optical similarity to the letter "S," making the sonnet's number a shorthand reference for "5hake5peare" or "5hakespeare's 5onnets," echoed by numerous words containing an "S" in the text.
   
   Of indescribable linguistic beauty, elegance and complexity, Shakespeare's sonnets owe their timeless appeal to their supreme compositional values, the universality of their themes, and their keen insights into the human heart and soul; as much as their transcendence of the era's poetic conventions which, following Petrarch, heavily idealized the addressee's qualities: a form new and exciting twohundred years earlier, but encrusted in cliche in the late 1500s. Indeed, Shakespeare's "Dark Lady" Sonnet #130 owes its particular fame to its clever puns on that very style, which went overboard with references to its golden-haired, starry- (beamy-, sparkling, sunny-) eyed, cherry- (strawberry-, vermilion-, coral-) lipped, rosy- (crimson-, purple-, dawn-) cheeked, ivory- (lily-, carnation-, crystal-, silver-, snowy-, swan-white) skinned, pearl-teethed, honey- (nectar-, music-) tongued, goddess-like objects. "My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun;" the Bard countered, proceeded to describe her breasts as "dun," her hair as "black wires," and her breath as "reek[ing]," and denied her any divine or angelic attributes. "And yet," he concluded: "by heaven, I think my love as rare As any she belied with false compare."
   
   Arguably, Shakespeare's very choice of addressees (a young man - also the subject of the famously romantic #18: "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day;" the first of several sonnets promising his immortalization in poetry - as well as the "Dark Lady," in turn introduced under the notion "black is beautiful" in #127) itself suggests a break with tradition; and compared to his contemporaries' poetry, even the equally-famous #116's on its face rather conventional praise of love's constancy ("Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments"), echoed in the poet's vow to vanquish time in #123, sounds fairly restrained. But ultimately, Shakespeare's sonnets - like his entire work - simply defy categorization. They are, as rival Ben Jonson acknowledged, written "for all time," just as the Bard himself immodestly claimed:
   
   'Gainst death and all oblivious enmity
   Shall you pace forth; your praise shall still find room
   Even in the eyes of all posterity
   That wear this world out to the ending doom.
   
   (Sonnet 55.)



5. The analysis given to Shakespeare's sonnets is immecable. The authors know what they are writing about. I particularly liked the introduction and the end of the book interpretation with the first words of each of the sonnets.

5 comments about Romeo and Juliet (Dover Thrift Editions).

1. I am very conflicted in my feelings about this play; there are very powerful reasons to rate it highly, and also very powerful reasons to rate it poorly. There are, really, NO reasons for rating it mediocre, and yet that's what I wind up doing, only because that is the balance between the great and the terrible.
   
   On the down side, BECAUSE this story has the reputation it has as THE prototypical love story, I truly despise it because it is responsible for an incredible amount of grief in the world over the last 400 years or so. Who can count how many young lovers have come to grief because they unquestioningly accept the idiotic presumtion that this story is predicated upon, that two people who literally don't know a thing about one another, not even their names, can make eye contact across a room and fall in love? Not simply feel attraction or interest, but truly fall in love? Love so powerful that they will die rather than live without one another? Yet this story has so permeated the culture that it is almost universally accepted that this is what love is like, and even people who have never read this play or seen it performed have been influenced by this idiocy to the point of trying to live their lives as though this were truly what love is like. As the main promulgator of such misinformation about the nature of love, this book is guilty of causing more pain in the world than many war criminals.
   
   And yet...blast it all, it's BEAUTIFULLY written. The language is fluid and musical even by Shakespeare's standards. Even though it is a tragedy, it is told with a trace of wry humor, as Shakespeare manages in only his very best work. I can understand why it has the reputation it has; the plot (once one accepts the ludicrous premise it is built upon) follows plausibly. If one ignores the damage that the play has done to the world's concept of what constitutes love, and rates it merely on its literary merits, it is clearly a 5-star effort, even when compared only to other Shakespearean plays.
   
   Unfortunately, that's what makes it so dangerous.



2. This is Shakespeare as it should be... no extraneous notes, no unnecessary stage directions, nothing but the text. If you are looking for anything that explains character, language, theme, etc. don't look here, as Shakespeare never wrote any of that. This is purely the text as-is.
   
   As a theatre professor, I would rather have my students work with a text like this rather than one littered with useless commentary and biased notations. If you don't understand a term or reference, use the Oxford English Dictionary rather than the limp and limited notes available in many editions.



3. This tragic tale of Romeo and Juliet is one of Shakespear's best known plays. It shows how pride and grudges can cause tragedies so it is better to let a problem go than hold a grudge.
   
   This story starts out with Romeo and his cousins walking around in the market place when all of a sudden Juliets cousins come by. They argue over a bit thumb and start to brawl. One of Romeo's cousins die and Tibalt dies as well.
   
   Then there is a party in which Romeo decides to invade. He meets Juliet and falls in love with her. She ends up falling in love with him too but their love can't happen because of their families feud against one another. They decide to flee because she was going to be wed with someone else.
   
   Juliet comes up with a plan that never reaches Romeo's ear. The plan was that she would take a poison that would put her in a deep sleep where it appears that she is dead. Romeo shows up and sees a stiff body of her loved one and he takes his own life with a poison bottle. Juliet wakes up and sees her lover dead so she takes her life away with a dagger. The priest shows up alon with the enemy families. They see what happened and decided not to have a problem between them anymore.
   
   This is a simple summarry of the great play of Romeo and Juliet. It is a tragedy that something horrible has to happen in order for the families to figure out that their fight was unecessary.
   This is a great play that everyone should know and should have the moral of this story in their minds when they have grudges.



4. Romeo and Juliet does not read as well as some other plays such as Hamlet. It must be seen to be fully enjoyed. Nevertheless, I would reccomend this edition of the play. It is dirt cheap, for the amount of content you recieve, it is well worth the money. I reccomended it, however I strongly suggest you watch the play first before reading it. I believe that only after you watch the play will you fully appreciate it.



5. This isn't my favorite of all of Shakespeare's stuff. First of all, Mercutio is the best character, and he dies too soon. Second, I didn't really like Romeo and Juliet enough to care a lot when they died.
   As for all the metaphors and allusions packed in, that's always interesting. I think people start Shakespeare with this play, because it's not as difficult as the other tragedies, which I suppose is a good idea. After this, go to Macbeth (the best!).

1 comments about Stage Rigging Handbook, Third Edition.

1. Let's say you're in the techincal theater business and need some answers regarding old hemp house rigging systems. Or you are a top notch arena rigger with the odd venue on your tour calendar. This book is written by one of the country's best riggers, on par with Harry Donovan. Almost every page of this tome is filled with pertinent information and illustrated with black and white photos detailing all aspects of both old and new theatrical rigging styles. An essential volume for anyone interested in moving beyond the amateur and into the professional, it is no replacement for experience, but will guide you towards safer working environments and can be used as a reference for any questions regarding such.