حتی نمی‌دونم از کجا باید شروع کنم راجع به این کتاب بنویسم. اول بگم که حتی نمی‌دونم به کدوم ادیشنِ کتاب باید امتیاز بدم. من مخلوطی از پنج ادیشن مختلف را خوندم: ای‌بوکِ ترجمه‌ از روسی به انگلیسی کنستانس گارنت، بعد آدیوبوک همین ترجمه با چاپی متفاوت، بعد چند فصلی آن وسط را از روی ترجمه روسی به فارسی مهری آهی خوندم، بعد از اون نسخه چاپی انگلیسی ترجمه پوی‌یر و والاخانسکی را خواندم، (خواندن این‌ها، حدود نصف بیشتر کتاب، نزدیک دو هفته وقت گرفت) و در نهایت نصفِ دوم کتاب را ظرف دو ساعت و نیم از روی ترجمه‌ی انگلیسی به فارسیِ احد عقیلیان، چاپ نشر مرکز خوندم. می‌دونم کار مسخره‌ای کردم، ولی به هرحال پیش اومد. از میان همه این ها ترجمه احد عقیلیان را خیلی دوست داشتم و سریع خوندم (طبعا چون به زبان مادریم بود)، ولی نثر و نوشتار ترجمه انگلیسی را بیشتر دوست داشتم (با این‌که کند پیش می‌رفت) و از بین اون‌ها هم ترجمه گارنت رو ترجیح دادم. ملموس‌تر بود. حالا برم سراغ خود کتاب. اولاً من اصلا کی باشم که بخوام به داستایفسکی نقد وارد کنم؟ اصلا از این مسئله که به کتاب پنج ندادم و چهار دادم خجالت می‌کشم. ولی چیکار کنم که لذتِ خوندنش برام پنج ستاره‌ی کامل نبود. خیلی سر خوندنش زجر کشیدم و بارها حوصله‌ام سر رفت و بار ها  چند صفحه رو روزنامه‌وار خوندم که به جاهای هیجان‌انگیز تر برسم. مدام منتظر بودم داستان طی یک سیر صعودی هیجان‌انگیز تر بشه؛ ولی نشد، و جذابیتش صرفا طی یک سیر سینوسی بالا پایین می‌رفت. شاید اشکال از منه که توی داستان همش به دنبال «کشش» و جذابیت می‌گردم. واقعا این ایراد بهم وارده. توی گودریدز چرخیدم و چندین و چند تا ریویو از این کتاب خوندم که همه بدون استثنا به نبوغ نویسنده و به شاهکار بودن این کتاب اشاره کردن. و بعد نشستم فکر کردم ببینم چرا من اونقدر حظ اعلا از این کتاب نبردم؟ انقدر من خنگم؟ و بی‌سواد؟ یعنی کتاب رو به طور کلی دوست داشتم، ولی واقعیت اینه که اون‌جوری که همه می‌گن به نظرم نبود! خیلی خوندم که می‌گن کتاب ما رو به اعماق تیره و تاریک ذهن راسکلنیکف می‌بره، ولی من رو که نبرد! درست، به افکارش برد، ولی جوری نبود که من کاملا مجذوب و غرق افکارش بشم. داستان برای من توی فضای بیرون می‌گذشت تا تو سرِ راسکلنیکف. شخصیت‌ها دیالوگ‌های طولانی می‌گفتن و من همش منتظر بودم راسکلنیکف تنها شه و به فکر فرو بره و من توی تار و پود افکارش گیر بیفتم و باز هم این طور نشد. نمی‌دونم. کمی از خودم ناامیدم که نتونستم اونجوری از کتاب لذت ببرم که ظاهرا هزاران نفر برده‌ن. حالا راجع به قسمت هایی که دوست داشتم:  قسمت‌های موش و گربه بازیِ بازرس پارفیری با راسکلنیکف حقیقتاً جزو جذاب‌ترین قسمت‌های داستان بودن. از بودن شخصیت‌های زن قوی و خوبی مثل دونیا و سونیا هم لذت بردم. از کل پروسه‌ی قتل، فرار کردنش از محل، خوابی که دید و صحنه‌ی مراسم ختم مارملادف هم لذت بردم. صرفا به طور کلی می‌تونم بگم اگه از حوصله سر رفتن های در طولِ خوندن بگذریم، از کل کتاب و فضاش و دیلماهاش لذت بردم. *اسپویلر در ادامه* اما بیشترین چیزی که نظرم رو نسبت به کتاب مثبت کرد، پایان بندیِ خوب و امیدوارانه و قشنگش بود. من همش انتظار داشتم راسکلنیکف رو بکشن. وقتی نکشتنش انتظار داشتم تو زندان دیوانه شه یا خودکشی کنه. ولی اون عشق و امیدی که ته داستان داشت، اون اطمینانی که داشت که این هفت سال می‌گذره و زندگیِ جدیدی بعدش شروع می‌شه، این که سونیا رو دوست داره و به امیدش زندگی می‌کنه، این که هنوز یه شانس دوباره، یه فرصتی وجود داره و زندگی به تهش نرسیده، این‌ها خیلی زیبا بود و باعث شد واقعا داستان رو دوست داشته باشم. الان به نظر خودم خیلی ریویوی سطحی ای نوشتم و حس می‌کنم اصلا عمق کتاب رو نفهمیدم. ولی چیکار می‌شه کرد دیگه!

Sylvia Plath's shocking, realistic, and intensely emotional novel about a woman falling into the grip of insanity. Esther Greenwood is brilliant, beautiful, enormously talented, and successful, but slowly going under—maybe for the last time. In her acclaimed and enduring masterwork, Sylvia Plath brilliantly draws the reader into Esther's breakdown with such intensity that her insanity becomes palpably real, even rational—as accessible an experience as going to the movies. A deep penetration into the darkest and most harrowing corners of the human psyche, The Bell Jar is an extraordinary accomplishment and a haunting American classic.

For mid-to-upper level courses in Gender Roles, Introduction to Women's Studies, and Sociology of Sex Roles. This text provides a balanced, non-polarized view of controversial issues that dispel gender myths and demonstrates how material can be meaningfully applied to a student's personal life. Focusing on the most recent research and theory--both in the U.S. and globally--"Gender Roles" provides an in-depth, survey and analysis of modern gender roles "and" issues from a sociological perspective while also integrating insights and research from other disciplines like biology, psychology, anthropology and history.

The brilliant, bestselling, landmark novel that tells the story of the Buendia family, and chronicles the irreconcilable conflict between the desire for solitude and the need for love—in rich, imaginative prose that has come to define an entire genre known as "magical realism."

I could say that I love Dick, but that would be weird. I do very much enjoy Philip K. Dick's writing and though this is not one of his best, the "Pizza and Sex Rule" applies to him; ie. just as even bad pizza and / or sex is still pretty good, bad PKD is as well. And this is not bad at all. The first mistake that a new reader would make is to watch Blade Runner and expect a novelization of that film; it was LOOSELY based upon the book. I'm a big fan of the Ridley Scott film starring Harrison Ford and Rutger Hauer, but the movie diverged from Phillip K. Dick's literature early on. The book is far more bleak than the film, if you can believe that, and much more intricate and complicated. Blade Runner benefits from a simplified storyline. The author was far ahead of his time both in the complexity of his story and the perspective from which he writes. There are elements of Brave New World, I, Robot, and Dune; but the author has a unique voice and the story is an original. It is not an excellent work, as there are gaps and inconsistencies and many loose ends that are never tied in, but the concept and provocation are superb.One element of the book that was completely left out of the film was a sub-plot involving a Christ-like messiah and a faith system based upon what could have been a hoax. First published in 1968, this was one of his more theological based novels, and a trend that would continue steadily becoming more frequent and invasive until the end of his writing.A MUST read for PKD fans as well as SF/F fans period.

In The Unbearable Lightness of Being, Milan Kundera tells the story of a young woman in love with a man torn between his love for her and his incorrigible womanizing and one of his mistresses and her humbly faithful lover. This magnificent novel juxtaposes geographically distant places, brilliant and playful reflections, and a variety of styles, to take its place as perhaps the major achievement of one of the world’s truly great writers.

Alternate cover edition of ISBN 0553213695 / 9780553213690"As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself transformed in his bed into a gigantic insect. He was laying on his hard, as it were armor-plated, back and when he lifted his head a little he could see his domelike brown belly divided into stiff arched segments on top of which the bed quilt could hardly keep in position and was about to slide off completely. His numerous legs, which were pitifully thin compared to the rest of his bulk, waved helplessly before his eyes." With it's startling, bizarre, yet surprisingly funny first opening, Kafka begins his masterpiece, The Metamorphosis. It is the story of a young man who, transformed overnight into a giant beetle-like insect, becomes an object of disgrace to his family, an outsider in his own home, a quintessentially alienated man. A harrowing—though absurdly comic—meditation on human feelings of inadequacy, guilt, and isolation, The Metamorphosis has taken its place as one of the most widely read and influential works of twentieth-century fiction. As W.H. Auden wrote, "Kafka is important to us because his predicament is the predicament of modern man."

I was a young man working the night shift in a gigantic hotel and the aging night auditor was a chain smoking Egyptian. He was near enough to retirement to be cactus-y inside and out. We liked each other right away and he mentored me in his own fashion.“Do you read plays?"“No."“Really?! But you have to. Eugene O'Niell, he's fucking wonderful. You must read him. You have to read plays!"I grew less young, he grew more old and years later he died. I found myself reading plays, always with his Arab accent in my ears. "Read this, read that...read the Russians, you have to, they're really fucking great. And Hardy. You read Hardy don't you? No?!" A deep, long drag on his cigarette, followed by an abrupt exhale and, "What is wrong with you? I don't know. You have to read these things."To this day I cannot read a play without smelling cigarette smoke and seeing him smile. Almost, Maine is a play. Typically American, it is brimming with hope, passion and enthusiasm. A bit of hyperbole, a dash of corny. I loved it and it made me happy and a tad less unwise.Galal, my old friend, I don't know if "Almost, Maine" is "fucking great". I confess it's not on a par with Chekov, but it is a playful play written with joyfulness and shill. I want you to know that I am still reading plays, and I still miss you.

Jean-Paul Sartre, the great French existentialist, displays his mastery of drama in NO EXIT, an unforgettable portrayal of hell.The play is a depiction of the afterlife in which three deceased characters are punished by being locked into a room together for all eternity. It is the source of Sartre's especially famous and often misinterpreted quotation "L'enfer, c'est les autres" or "Hell is other people", a reference to Sartre's ideas about the Look and the perpetual ontological struggle of being caused to see oneself as an object in the world of another consciousness.

A vicious fifteen-year-old droog is the central character of this 1963 classic. In Anthony Burgess's nightmare vision of the future, where criminals take over after dark, the story is told by the central character, Alex, who talks in a brutal invented slang that brilliantly renders his and his friends' social pathology. A Clockwork Orange is a frightening fable about good and evil, and the meaning of human freedom. And when the state undertakes to reform Alex to "redeem" him, the novel asks, "At what cost?"This edition includes the controversial last chapter not published in the first edition and Burgess's introduction "A Clockwork Orange Resucked."

-----------------------------------------------------------Peasant 1: Did you hear? Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead?Peasant 2: Really dead?Peasant 1: Really dead.Peasant 2: Really?Peasant 1: Really, really.Peasant 2: Really, really, really?Peasant 1: Really, really, really.Peasant 2: Really, really, really, really?Peasant 1: Would you stop that? They're dead as dead can be - which is actually pretty dead.Peasant 2: Pretty dead indeed.Peasant 1: But they're not the pretty dead.Peasant 2: Few are pretty when dead.Peasant 1: To be sure.Peasant 2: Was it murder?Peasant 1: Oh yes, t'was a murder of a show. All the crowd demanded their money back indeed.Peasant 2: And who could have done the dirty deed?Peasant 1: Stop that, we're no minstrels to be finishing each others rhymes.Peasant 2: Or cleaning up the other's crimes.Peasant 1: I've half a mind to let you join Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, can't you see our audience is growing tired of such absurdity? Though absurdity may be our part (the peasants together) absurdity for a laugh quickly loses all sense of art.Peasant 1: As I heard it, I believe that Hamlet may be to blame for the deaths of those two men. I heard that he replaced a letter - with instructions to kill him - with one bearing instructions for their death.Peasant 2: Quite the rumour. Where did this original letter come from I wonder? Peasant 1: Oh, that's quite easy to tell. It came from Claudius, Hamlet's dear uncle.Peasant 2: So was said letter - of which we have not seen...Peasant 1: Much as we have not seen Rosencrantz or Guildenstern...Peasant 2: ...therefore a letter to put master Hamlet out of his funky misery?(Enter Dr. John Watson and Sherlock Holmes)John Watson: I say, Sherlock, we don't even belong in this type of fiction.Sherlock Holmes: My dear Watson, you forget that this is now a murder mystery. And murder is quite within our realm of expertise.Both Peasants: (turn to the audience) Aside from committing them we hope.Watson: Then, I presume you have come to a decision about this case by now Holmes?Holmes: Indubitably, my good fellow. The solution is rather obvious.Watson: So it was Hamlet after all, his hands are certainly most guilty.Holmes: Why of course not Watson. Don't be ridiculous. It was not Hamlet after all who initiated the beginnings of this murder.Watson: Claudius then, it was his letter that sent two men to their dooms.Holmes: Ah, Watson, you see but you do not observe.Watson: Surely, you do not mean to insist that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are responsible for the deaths themselves?Holmes: Try to keep up Watson, I said murder, and I meant murder. This is no suicide case, it is a murder following an attempted regicide, most foul.Watson: Why then, Holmes, whatever the dickens could be the solution?Holmes: There is clearly nothing more elusive to you Watson than an obvious fact. We are looking at a murder committed centuries ago, murder that continues to haunt the here and now. In several different worlds at this time, several versions of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are being murdered all over again. The true criminal - the one which remains as truth - is clearly the old bard himself. Mr William Shakespeare.-----------------------------------------------------------\
  "We're tragedians you see. We follow directions - there is no choice involved. The bad end unhappily, the good unluckily. That is what tragedy means."\
The remainder of this review has been moved to my website. If you would care to read it, then please click the following link: FULL REVIEW OF ROZENCRANTZ AND GUILDENSTERN ARE DEAD

Books to read