a book about Barthes and not about photography, 06 Jul 2008
To get a feeling for this book read the most negative coments from reviews of his "Mythologies" and you'll be on the right track. Incorrect assertions are presented as fact. Incorrect conclusions are built on those assertions. Language is used to obfuscate rather than elucidate meaning (if you don't know those words don't even try to read Barthes). Actually, language appears to be used more to say "I am clever." Clever people communicate clearly, monsieur!

Unbearable, and you won't learn a thing about photography, which he more or less rejects in his opening chapters in favour of contemplating his own navel



I'm sure it's very good if I could only understand it, 12 Jul 2007
This book was recommended to me by a philosopher friend who thought I might enjoy it as I'm about to embark on a photography course. I'm not a serious academic, but I'm not an idiot either and I have to admit I found this a pretty tough read. I understood the general meaning, but felt the language and structure of the book meant that I missed out on being able to really appreciate what seems like quite an exceptional piece of work with some fascinating alternate views. I'd do your research on Barthes before you buy this to determine whether you might or might not be comfortable with his style, otherwise, give it a go - might just take a couple of reads!

A Classic in the Theory of Photography., 19 Sep 2000
Barthes wrote this book out of urge to discover the real nature of Photography. In the first part of the book he establishes his own system to do that. This system is based on two "cathegories" that Photography contains, studium and punctum. In the second part he wants to come closer to eidos, the nature of Photography. Therefor he takes one of his photographies, showing his mother as a child. Out of his emotions by this photography he builds the theory, often comparing it with another art, Film and sometimes also with Theatre. The book can also be recomended to wider public, not only philosophers, because it is written in a simple, understandable way, but is still opening some major questions regarding its subject.

a book about Barthes and not about photography, 06 Jul 2008
To get a feeling for this book read the most negative coments from reviews of his "Mythologies" and you'll be on the right track. Incorrect assertions are presented as fact. Incorrect conclusions are built on those assertions. Language is used to obfuscate rather than elucidate meaning (if you don't know those words don't even try to read Barthes). Actually, language appears to be used more to say "I am clever." Clever people communicate clearly, monsieur!

Unbearable, and you won't learn a thing about photography, which he more or less rejects in his opening chapters in favour of contemplating his own navel



I'm sure it's very good if I could only understand it, 12 Jul 2007
This book was recommended to me by a philosopher friend who thought I might enjoy it as I'm about to embark on a photography course. I'm not a serious academic, but I'm not an idiot either and I have to admit I found this a pretty tough read. I understood the general meaning, but felt the language and structure of the book meant that I missed out on being able to really appreciate what seems like quite an exceptional piece of work with some fascinating alternate views. I'd do your research on Barthes before you buy this to determine whether you might or might not be comfortable with his style, otherwise, give it a go - might just take a couple of reads!

A Classic in the Theory of Photography., 19 Sep 2000
Barthes wrote this book out of urge to discover the real nature of Photography. In the first part of the book he establishes his own system to do that. This system is based on two "cathegories" that Photography contains, studium and punctum. In the second part he wants to come closer to eidos, the nature of Photography. Therefor he takes one of his photographies, showing his mother as a child. Out of his emotions by this photography he builds the theory, often comparing it with another art, Film and sometimes also with Theatre. The book can also be recomended to wider public, not only philosophers, because it is written in a simple, understandable way, but is still opening some major questions regarding its subject.

A con, 01 Nov 2008
Where here the blunt Aussie frankness that Germaine Greer has celebrated and been respected for all of her life?
When writing history, it is sometimes almost acceptable to now and then fill in gaps by positing things to make sense of an action, but this disingenuous offering is the worst `history' book I have ever read in that it is 99% conjecture - positing - and 1% truism.
After 400 pages we know exactly nothing more about Shakespeare or his wife, than we did - than anybody did - before. Using highly irritating devices like: `if... we might suppose... it is not inconceivable... I would argue...' etc. ad nauseam, Greer attempts to create a woman whom she can find sympathy with, for no other reason than to defend her against the criticisms of other historians who clearly know no more about their subject than Greer does.
The reader does not care about individuals in the records who have no bearing on the facts about William Shakespeare or Ann Hathaway and are put in as ballast. But anyone interested in the truth will be appalled and insulted by the deceitful way Greer uses suggestion to give substance to her imagination and thus mislead him or her.


Very convincing, compassionate and scholarly, 20 May 2008
I found this a very convincing portrait of a forgotten life and of an often unfairly villified woman. Before I read this book I hadn't realised I fell into the category of what Greer calls 'Bardolaters', people who assume that Shakespeare was such a genius and that his wife was an illiterate cunning woman who trapped a gullible boy into a marriage that he hated and couldn't wait to get away from. Throughout the book, Greer gives Ann her proper title - Ann Shakespeare. I have never seen her referred to as anything other than Ann Hathaway by other writers. This is a powerful statement that puts the author on the Ann's side and enables the reader to re-evaluate what they think of Ann and her life and marriage.
Greer rightly praises Ann's achievements, unnoticed until now: she bore and brought up 3 children through plague and famine on her own, she lived in the same small town all her married life without a hint of scandal and she seems to have not only lived, but prospered, keeping herself and her family with no help from her husband.
Greer also points out that Ann cannot have felt abandoned by her husband as there was a legal process for claiming abandonment for wives in that situation and Ann did not initiate that proceeding.
Much of the book is taken up with accounts of women contemporary with Ann as a way of extrapolating what her life might have been like and this can become confusing and occasionally a bit tedious, which is why I've given the book 4 stars and not 5.
If you want a balanced and compassionate look at the life of a woman who has had a very bad press since the 17th Century, you won't find a better book than this. I highly recommend it for anyone interested in how ordinary people lived at that time and how this extraordinary woman might have lived as well.

Dire, 16 Apr 2008
Although interested in social history and women, this book was a great disappointment. As one reviewer has said (favourably!), this book is just reams of anecdotal information that may, possibly, could be relevant interspersed with inflamatory judgements against other scholars. The book demonstrates no editorial control whatsoever and exists on a presumption that it will sell because of the author and a nice cover. As a broad reader who enjoys serious books based on facts and well constructed argument this was a very unusual disappointment. That said, I buy the argument she made but think it could have been argued a lot cleaner and better. I pity the teacher who will use it in class to stimulate her Shakespeare students as unless carefully used, it could have exactly the opposite effect!

Jarring and fanciful, 18 Mar 2008
Sadly, a rather embarassing performance, this, in the long tradition of half-baked and almost entirely fanciful Shakespearean speculation (A.L. Rowse etc). Greer presents suppositions as fact, and her assertive tone is really jarring, hectoring and trying to compel, rather than drawing the reader in; and there's a nastily dismissive approach to fellow critics and historians (which she isn't). Greer's scholarly work on the seventeenth century writers is sure-footed and interesting. By contrast, this book will be quickly forgotten, I hope. And of course, it's unlucky in that it appears shortly after three genuinely excellent books on Shakespeare: Charles Nicholl's The Lodger, Shapiro's 1599, and Frank Kermode's little book on Shakespeare's Language.

shoddy scholarshio, 22 Jan 2008
This is simply a flight of fancy on Ms Greer's part.She sneers dismissively at the work of other scholars, sometimes in quite an insulting tone, while putting forward her own ideas, most of which can have little basis in fact. She insists that they provide proof for their conclusions while then, often in the next sentence, putting forward an outlandish idea for which she has no proof! She contradicts herself, sometimes as blatently as from page to page. Like the rest of us, she knows very little hard facts about Ann Hathaway, so she looks at what other women of the time did and imagines that Hathaway did them all- from money lending to growing a mulberry tree plantation to brewing beer to being a medicine woman, with plenty of other options in between. However, apart from her rather Mills & Boonish take on the Shakespeares' married life, the most annoying thing about this work is the rubbishing of others' research while replacing it with a house of cards. As a scholar, Ms Greer has let her past work down very badly.

a book about Barthes and not about photography, 06 Jul 2008
To get a feeling for this book read the most negative coments from reviews of his "Mythologies" and you'll be on the right track. Incorrect assertions are presented as fact. Incorrect conclusions are built on those assertions. Language is used to obfuscate rather than elucidate meaning (if you don't know those words don't even try to read Barthes). Actually, language appears to be used more to say "I am clever." Clever people communicate clearly, monsieur!

Unbearable, and you won't learn a thing about photography, which he more or less rejects in his opening chapters in favour of contemplating his own navel



I'm sure it's very good if I could only understand it, 12 Jul 2007
This book was recommended to me by a philosopher friend who thought I might enjoy it as I'm about to embark on a photography course. I'm not a serious academic, but I'm not an idiot either and I have to admit I found this a pretty tough read. I understood the general meaning, but felt the language and structure of the book meant that I missed out on being able to really appreciate what seems like quite an exceptional piece of work with some fascinating alternate views. I'd do your research on Barthes before you buy this to determine whether you might or might not be comfortable with his style, otherwise, give it a go - might just take a couple of reads!

A Classic in the Theory of Photography., 19 Sep 2000
Barthes wrote this book out of urge to discover the real nature of Photography. In the first part of the book he establishes his own system to do that. This system is based on two "cathegories" that Photography contains, studium and punctum. In the second part he wants to come closer to eidos, the nature of Photography. Therefor he takes one of his photographies, showing his mother as a child. Out of his emotions by this photography he builds the theory, often comparing it with another art, Film and sometimes also with Theatre. The book can also be recomended to wider public, not only philosophers, because it is written in a simple, understandable way, but is still opening some major questions regarding its subject.

A con, 01 Nov 2008
Where here the blunt Aussie frankness that Germaine Greer has celebrated and been respected for all of her life?
When writing history, it is sometimes almost acceptable to now and then fill in gaps by positing things to make sense of an action, but this disingenuous offering is the worst `history' book I have ever read in that it is 99% conjecture - positing - and 1% truism.
After 400 pages we know exactly nothing more about Shakespeare or his wife, than we did - than anybody did - before. Using highly irritating devices like: `if... we might suppose... it is not inconceivable... I would argue...' etc. ad nauseam, Greer attempts to create a woman whom she can find sympathy with, for no other reason than to defend her against the criticisms of other historians who clearly know no more about their subject than Greer does.
The reader does not care about individuals in the records who have no bearing on the facts about William Shakespeare or Ann Hathaway and are put in as ballast. But anyone interested in the truth will be appalled and insulted by the deceitful way Greer uses suggestion to give substance to her imagination and thus mislead him or her.


Very convincing, compassionate and scholarly, 20 May 2008
I found this a very convincing portrait of a forgotten life and of an often unfairly villified woman. Before I read this book I hadn't realised I fell into the category of what Greer calls 'Bardolaters', people who assume that Shakespeare was such a genius and that his wife was an illiterate cunning woman who trapped a gullible boy into a marriage that he hated and couldn't wait to get away from. Throughout the book, Greer gives Ann her proper title - Ann Shakespeare. I have never seen her referred to as anything other than Ann Hathaway by other writers. This is a powerful statement that puts the author on the Ann's side and enables the reader to re-evaluate what they think of Ann and her life and marriage.
Greer rightly praises Ann's achievements, unnoticed until now: she bore and brought up 3 children through plague and famine on her own, she lived in the same small town all her married life without a hint of scandal and she seems to have not only lived, but prospered, keeping herself and her family with no help from her husband.
Greer also points out that Ann cannot have felt abandoned by her husband as there was a legal process for claiming abandonment for wives in that situation and Ann did not initiate that proceeding.
Much of the book is taken up with accounts of women contemporary with Ann as a way of extrapolating what her life might have been like and this can become confusing and occasionally a bit tedious, which is why I've given the book 4 stars and not 5.
If you want a balanced and compassionate look at the life of a woman who has had a very bad press since the 17th Century, you won't find a better book than this. I highly recommend it for anyone interested in how ordinary people lived at that time and how this extraordinary woman might have lived as well.

Dire, 16 Apr 2008
Although interested in social history and women, this book was a great disappointment. As one reviewer has said (favourably!), this book is just reams of anecdotal information that may, possibly, could be relevant interspersed with inflamatory judgements against other scholars. The book demonstrates no editorial control whatsoever and exists on a presumption that it will sell because of the author and a nice cover. As a broad reader who enjoys serious books based on facts and well constructed argument this was a very unusual disappointment. That said, I buy the argument she made but think it could have been argued a lot cleaner and better. I pity the teacher who will use it in class to stimulate her Shakespeare students as unless carefully used, it could have exactly the opposite effect!

Jarring and fanciful, 18 Mar 2008
Sadly, a rather embarassing performance, this, in the long tradition of half-baked and almost entirely fanciful Shakespearean speculation (A.L. Rowse etc). Greer presents suppositions as fact, and her assertive tone is really jarring, hectoring and trying to compel, rather than drawing the reader in; and there's a nastily dismissive approach to fellow critics and historians (which she isn't). Greer's scholarly work on the seventeenth century writers is sure-footed and interesting. By contrast, this book will be quickly forgotten, I hope. And of course, it's unlucky in that it appears shortly after three genuinely excellent books on Shakespeare: Charles Nicholl's The Lodger, Shapiro's 1599, and Frank Kermode's little book on Shakespeare's Language.

shoddy scholarshio, 22 Jan 2008
This is simply a flight of fancy on Ms Greer's part.She sneers dismissively at the work of other scholars, sometimes in quite an insulting tone, while putting forward her own ideas, most of which can have little basis in fact. She insists that they provide proof for their conclusions while then, often in the next sentence, putting forward an outlandish idea for which she has no proof! She contradicts herself, sometimes as blatently as from page to page. Like the rest of us, she knows very little hard facts about Ann Hathaway, so she looks at what other women of the time did and imagines that Hathaway did them all- from money lending to growing a mulberry tree plantation to brewing beer to being a medicine woman, with plenty of other options in between. However, apart from her rather Mills & Boonish take on the Shakespeares' married life, the most annoying thing about this work is the rubbishing of others' research while replacing it with a house of cards. As a scholar, Ms Greer has let her past work down very badly.

Interesting and enjoyable read, 27 Nov 2008
I found this book a very interesting and enjoyable read. The author discusses literary fiction under a number of themes and he usually has a page of fiction taken form the work of a particular author and he then spends several pages discussing aspects of this. He takes extracts from a large number of authors and their works and these range from eighteen century novelists right up to contemporary novelists. I already had the vast bulk of the works that he discussed in my collection but there were several that I hadn't either purchased or read before (not always the same things as far as I am concerned). I ordered a set of three novels in one volume by Henry Green and another one by Michael Frayn on the strength of reading this book.

Horrible, 19 Nov 2008
The book might be cheap but it isn't worth the amount of money asked. I thought I would get an idea how to write a novel, just some insight and advise, and instead I get nothing. The author with great care, talks about ancient books, that are probably very important books, but are of no relevance really to anyone trying to write for fun and in our current century.
I don't need to know who or why someone wrote something in 100 years ago and while Jane Astin was an excellent writer, I don't want to know about her style or what it is called.
I had been looking for some qualified advise what to do in writing a story and what not to do, what techniques to apply and how certain sentence structurs could be used, I do not care to know how ancient English worked.
Therefore, while the book is most certainly well researched and if there is an interest in how or why some writers from a long time ago chose to write in a certain way, then I would recommend it but otherwise, it is a waste of money.
No valid points I can use for myself, just grief that I have wasted my money on it.
And I never leave any comments like this but this time, I felt I really had to.

Indispensable for the novelist, 14 Dec 2007
Terms are bandied around for different forms of novel writing, and you dismiss them as 'jargon', or perhaps 'gobbledegook', and move on. It's only when you've actually written a novel that doesn't fit the standard genre - historical, fantasy, adventure, thriller, etc - that you wish you'd paid more attention. If you've completed writing such a book without having recourse to the Art of Fiction, you'll need it at this point, otherwise you might be excused for thinking you've ploughed a completely new literary furrow. So, before you start preparing your witty acceptance speech on winning the Booker, do read David Lodge and you'll learn that someone famous has been there before you and that, in some cases, they have been lauded and slated by the critics in equal proportions.

You'll learn about Magic Realism, Stream of Consciousness, The Reader in the Text, Teenage Skaz etc etc. There's much in the Art of Fiction for the more orthodox writer, too. His essays are beautifully written, very clear and he uses well-known illustrative texts. I can thoroughly recommend this one for the discerning writer and reader.

Interesting and insightful, 09 Jul 2007
"The Art of Fiction" is divided into 50 chapters, each devoted to a different aspect or theme in fiction (in this case primarily novel-writing). Some of these themes are standard topics: 'Beginning', 'Point of View', 'Introducing a Character', 'Chapters' and 'Ending' for example. Others are more unusual: including 'Suspense', 'Symbolism', 'Epiphany', 'The Telephone' as well as more technical-sounding topics such as 'Aporia' and 'Intertextuality'. Through these themes Lodge explores the construction of the novel and underlines the sheer variety of approaches taken by different writers over the course of time.

Each chapter is drawn from an article in Lodge's own newspaper column, which means that the subject matter is easily accessible and digestible for the casual reader. Lodge's style is easy to read and follow and he occasionally intersperses his analysis with his own anecdotes. This is 'a book to browse in, and dip into', as Lodge himself explains, which assumes very little prior knowledge of the texts concerned. Indeed his subjects are very diverse, ranging from Henry Fielding in the 18th century, and Victorian writers such as Brontë and Dickens, all the way to 20th-century authors including, among many others, George Orwell and Kazuo Ishiguro. However, it is not necessary to have read all - or even any - of these texts, as Lodge begins each chapter with a relevant passage quoted in full to illustrate his point.

The goal of "The Art of Fiction" is to enhance the reader's understanding of modern literature, and not explicitly to teach lessons in composition to aspiring authors. Nevertheless, for any writer it is always instructive to dissect those works which have gone before, and this book would therefore be of tremendous use.

Everything considered, "The Art of Fiction" is a worthy addition to the bookshelf of anyone with an interest in deconstructing how modern fiction works - either the casual reader or the student. Recommended.

Interesting and insightful, 23 Jun 2007
"The Art of Fiction" is divided into 50 chapters, each devoted to a different aspect or theme in fiction (in this case primarily novel-writing). Some of these themes are standard topics: 'Beginning', 'Point of View', 'Introducing a Character', 'Chapters' and 'Ending' for example. Others are more unusual: including 'Suspense', 'Symbolism', 'Epiphany', 'The Telephone' as well as more technical-sounding topics such as 'Aporia' and 'Intertextuality'. Through these themes Lodge explores the construction of the novel and underlines the sheer variety of approaches taken by different writers over the course of time.

Each chapter is drawn from an article in Lodge's own newspaper column, which means that the subject matter is easily accessible and digestible for the casual reader. Lodge's style is easy to read and follow and he occasionally intersperses his analysis with his own anecdotes. This is 'a book to browse in, and dip into', as Lodge himself explains, which assumes very little prior knowledge of the texts concerned. Indeed his subjects are very diverse, ranging from Henry Fielding in the 18th century, and Victorian writers such as Brontë and Dickens, all the way to 20th-century authors including, among many others, George Orwell and Kazuo Ishiguro. However, it is not necessary to have read all - or even any - of these texts, as Lodge begins each chapter with a relevant passage quoted in full to illustrate his point.

The goal of "The Art of Fiction" is to enhance the reader's understanding of modern literature, and not explicitly to teach lessons in composition to aspiring authors. Nevertheless, for any writer it is always instructive to dissect those works which have gone before, and this book would therefore be of tremendous use.

Everything considered, "The Art of Fiction" is a worthy addition to the bookshelf of anyone with an interest in deconstructing how modern fiction works - either the casual reader or the student. Recommended.

a book about Barthes and not about photography, 06 Jul 2008
To get a feeling for this book read the most negative coments from reviews of his "Mythologies" and you'll be on the right track. Incorrect assertions are presented as fact. Incorrect conclusions are built on those assertions. Language is used to obfuscate rather than elucidate meaning (if you don't know those words don't even try to read Barthes). Actually, language appears to be used more to say "I am clever." Clever people communicate clearly, monsieur!

Unbearable, and you won't learn a thing about photography, which he more or less rejects in his opening chapters in favour of contemplating his own navel



I'm sure it's very good if I could only understand it, 12 Jul 2007
This book was recommended to me by a philosopher friend who thought I might enjoy it as I'm about to embark on a photography course. I'm not a serious academic, but I'm not an idiot either and I have to admit I found this a pretty tough read. I understood the general meaning, but felt the language and structure of the book meant that I missed out on being able to really appreciate what seems like quite an exceptional piece of work with some fascinating alternate views. I'd do your research on Barthes before you buy this to determine whether you might or might not be comfortable with his style, otherwise, give it a go - might just take a couple of reads!

A Classic in the Theory of Photography., 19 Sep 2000
Barthes wrote this book out of urge to discover the real nature of Photography. In the first part of the book he establishes his own system to do that. This system is based on two "cathegories" that Photography contains, studium and punctum. In the second part he wants to come closer to eidos, the nature of Photography. Therefor he takes one of his photographies, showing his mother as a child. Out of his emotions by this photography he builds the theory, often comparing it with another art, Film and sometimes also with Theatre. The book can also be recomended to wider public, not only philosophers, because it is written in a simple, understandable way, but is still opening some major questions regarding its subject.

A con, 01 Nov 2008
Where here the blunt Aussie frankness that Germaine Greer has celebrated and been respected for all of her life?
When writing history, it is sometimes almost acceptable to now and then fill in gaps by positing things to make sense of an action, but this disingenuous offering is the worst `history' book I have ever read in that it is 99% conjecture - positing - and 1% truism.
After 400 pages we know exactly nothing more about Shakespeare or his wife, than we did - than anybody did - before. Using highly irritating devices like: `if... we might suppose... it is not inconceivable... I would argue...' etc. ad nauseam, Greer attempts to create a woman whom she can find sympathy with, for no other reason than to defend her against the criticisms of other historians who clearly know no more about their subject than Greer does.
The reader does not care about individuals in the records who have no bearing on the facts about William Shakespeare or Ann Hathaway and are put in as ballast. But anyone interested in the truth will be appalled and insulted by the deceitful way Greer uses suggestion to give substance to her imagination and thus mislead him or her.


Very convincing, compassionate and scholarly, 20 May 2008
I found this a very convincing portrait of a forgotten life and of an often unfairly villified woman. Before I read this book I hadn't realised I fell into the category of what Greer calls 'Bardolaters', people who assume that Shakespeare was such a genius and that his wife was an illiterate cunning woman who trapped a gullible boy into a marriage that he hated and couldn't wait to get away from. Throughout the book, Greer gives Ann her proper title - Ann Shakespeare. I have never seen her referred to as anything other than Ann Hathaway by other writers. This is a powerful statement that puts the author on the Ann's side and enables the reader to re-evaluate what they think of Ann and her life and marriage.
Greer rightly praises Ann's achievements, unnoticed until now: she bore and brought up 3 children through plague and famine on her own, she lived in the same small town all her married life without a hint of scandal and she seems to have not only lived, but prospered, keeping herself and her family with no help from her husband.
Greer also points out that Ann cannot have felt abandoned by her husband as there was a legal process for claiming abandonment for wives in that situation and Ann did not initiate that proceeding.
Much of the book is taken up with accounts of women contemporary with Ann as a way of extrapolating what her life might have been like and this can become confusing and occasionally a bit tedious, which is why I've given the book 4 stars and not 5.
If you want a balanced and compassionate look at the life of a woman who has had a very bad press since the 17th Century, you won't find a better book than this. I highly recommend it for anyone interested in how ordinary people lived at that time and how this extraordinary woman might have lived as well.

Dire, 16 Apr 2008
Although interested in social history and women, this book was a great disappointment. As one reviewer has said (favourably!), this book is just reams of anecdotal information that may, possibly, could be relevant interspersed with inflamatory judgements against other scholars. The book demonstrates no editorial control whatsoever and exists on a presumption that it will sell because of the author and a nice cover. As a broad reader who enjoys serious books based on facts and well constructed argument this was a very unusual disappointment. That said, I buy the argument she made but think it could have been argued a lot cleaner and better. I pity the teacher who will use it in class to stimulate her Shakespeare students as unless carefully used, it could have exactly the opposite effect!

Jarring and fanciful, 18 Mar 2008
Sadly, a rather embarassing performance, this, in the long tradition of half-baked and almost entirely fanciful Shakespearean speculation (A.L. Rowse etc). Greer presents suppositions as fact, and her assertive tone is really jarring, hectoring and trying to compel, rather than drawing the reader in; and there's a nastily dismissive approach to fellow critics and historians (which she isn't). Greer's scholarly work on the seventeenth century writers is sure-footed and interesting. By contrast, this book will be quickly forgotten, I hope. And of course, it's unlucky in that it appears shortly after three genuinely excellent books on Shakespeare: Charles Nicholl's The Lodger, Shapiro's 1599, and Frank Kermode's little book on Shakespeare's Language.

shoddy scholarshio, 22 Jan 2008
This is simply a flight of fancy on Ms Greer's part.She sneers dismissively at the work of other scholars, sometimes in quite an insulting tone, while putting forward her own ideas, most of which can have little basis in fact. She insists that they provide proof for their conclusions while then, often in the next sentence, putting forward an outlandish idea for which she has no proof! She contradicts herself, sometimes as blatently as from page to page. Like the rest of us, she knows very little hard facts about Ann Hathaway, so she looks at what other women of the time did and imagines that Hathaway did them all- from money lending to growing a mulberry tree plantation to brewing beer to being a medicine woman, with plenty of other options in between. However, apart from her rather Mills & Boonish take on the Shakespeares' married life, the most annoying thing about this work is the rubbishing of others' research while replacing it with a house of cards. As a scholar, Ms Greer has let her past work down very badly.

Interesting and enjoyable read, 27 Nov 2008
I found this book a very interesting and enjoyable read. The author discusses literary fiction under a number of themes and he usually has a page of fiction taken form the work of a particular author and he then spends several pages discussing aspects of this. He takes extracts from a large number of authors and their works and these range from eighteen century novelists right up to contemporary novelists. I already had the vast bulk of the works that he discussed in my collection but there were several that I hadn't either purchased or read before (not always the same things as far as I am concerned). I ordered a set of three novels in one volume by Henry Green and another one by Michael Frayn on the strength of reading this book.

Horrible, 19 Nov 2008
The book might be cheap but it isn't worth the amount of money asked. I thought I would get an idea how to write a novel, just some insight and advise, and instead I get nothing. The author with great care, talks about ancient books, that are probably very important books, but are of no relevance really to anyone trying to write for fun and in our current century.
I don't need to know who or why someone wrote something in 100 years ago and while Jane Astin was an excellent writer, I don't want to know about her style or what it is called.
I had been looking for some qualified advise what to do in writing a story and what not to do, what techniques to apply and how certain sentence structurs could be used, I do not care to know how ancient English worked.
Therefore, while the book is most certainly well researched and if there is an interest in how or why some writers from a long time ago chose to write in a certain way, then I would recommend it but otherwise, it is a waste of money.
No valid points I can use for myself, just grief that I have wasted my money on it.
And I never leave any comments like this but this time, I felt I really had to.

Indispensable for the novelist, 14 Dec 2007
Terms are bandied around for different forms of novel writing, and you dismiss them as 'jargon', or perhaps 'gobbledegook', and move on. It's only when you've actually written a novel that doesn't fit the standard genre - historical, fantasy, adventure, thriller, etc - that you wish you'd paid more attention. If you've completed writing such a book without having recourse to the Art of Fiction, you'll need it at this point, otherwise you might be excused for thinking you've ploughed a completely new literary furrow. So, before you start preparing your witty acceptance speech on winning the Booker, do read David Lodge and you'll learn that someone famous has been there before you and that, in some cases, they have been lauded and slated by the critics in equal proportions.

You'll learn about Magic Realism, Stream of Consciousness, The Reader in the Text, Teenage Skaz etc etc. There's much in the Art of Fiction for the more orthodox writer, too. His essays are beautifully written, very clear and he uses well-known illustrative texts. I can thoroughly recommend this one for the discerning writer and reader.

Interesting and insightful, 09 Jul 2007
"The Art of Fiction" is divided into 50 chapters, each devoted to a different aspect or theme in fiction (in this case primarily novel-writing). Some of these themes are standard topics: 'Beginning', 'Point of View', 'Introducing a Character', 'Chapters' and 'Ending' for example. Others are more unusual: including 'Suspense', 'Symbolism', 'Epiphany', 'The Telephone' as well as more technical-sounding topics such as 'Aporia' and 'Intertextuality'. Through these themes Lodge explores the construction of the novel and underlines the sheer variety of approaches taken by different writers over the course of time.

Each chapter is drawn from an article in Lodge's own newspaper column, which means that the subject matter is easily accessible and digestible for the casual reader. Lodge's style is easy to read and follow and he occasionally intersperses his analysis with his own anecdotes. This is 'a book to browse in, and dip into', as Lodge himself explains, which assumes very little prior knowledge of the texts concerned. Indeed his subjects are very diverse, ranging from Henry Fielding in the 18th century, and Victorian writers such as Brontë and Dickens, all the way to 20th-century authors including, among many others, George Orwell and Kazuo Ishiguro. However, it is not necessary to have read all - or even any - of these texts, as Lodge begins each chapter with a relevant passage quoted in full to illustrate his point.

The goal of "The Art of Fiction" is to enhance the reader's understanding of modern literature, and not explicitly to teach lessons in composition to aspiring authors. Nevertheless, for any writer it is always instructive to dissect those works which have gone before, and this book would therefore be of tremendous use.

Everything considered, "The Art of Fiction" is a worthy addition to the bookshelf of anyone with an interest in deconstructing how modern fiction works - either the casual reader or the student. Recommended.

Interesting and insightful, 23 Jun 2007
"The Art of Fiction" is divided into 50 chapters, each devoted to a different aspect or theme in fiction (in this case primarily novel-writing). Some of these themes are standard topics: 'Beginning', 'Point of View', 'Introducing a Character', 'Chapters' and 'Ending' for example. Others are more unusual: including 'Suspense', 'Symbolism', 'Epiphany', 'The Telephone' as well as more technical-sounding topics such as 'Aporia' and 'Intertextuality'. Through these themes Lodge explores the construction of the novel and underlines the sheer variety of approaches taken by different writers over the course of time.

Each chapter is drawn from an article in Lodge's own newspaper column, which means that the subject matter is easily accessible and digestible for the casual reader. Lodge's style is easy to read and follow and he occasionally intersperses his analysis with his own anecdotes. This is 'a book to browse in, and dip into', as Lodge himself explains, which assumes very little prior knowledge of the texts concerned. Indeed his subjects are very diverse, ranging from Henry Fielding in the 18th century, and Victorian writers such as Brontë and Dickens, all the way to 20th-century authors including, among many others, George Orwell and Kazuo Ishiguro. However, it is not necessary to have read all - or even any - of these texts, as Lodge begins each chapter with a relevant passage quoted in full to illustrate his point.

The goal of "The Art of Fiction" is to enhance the reader's understanding of modern literature, and not explicitly to teach lessons in composition to aspiring authors. Nevertheless, for any writer it is always instructive to dissect those works which have gone before, and this book would therefore be of tremendous use.

Everything considered, "The Art of Fiction" is a worthy addition to the bookshelf of anyone with an interest in deconstructing how modern fiction works - either the casual reader or the student. Recommended.

A great gift for book-lovers of all types, 06 Oct 2008
I always enjoy John Sutherland's writings having first come across his literary columns in The Guardian. I've already read his How to Read a Novel and The Boy Who Loved Books, so when Curiosities of Literature came out a month or two ago it was a bit of a "must have". In fact it turned out to be the perfect book to take on holiday, being very easy to dip into and always providing entertainment in odd moments reclaimed from the swimming pool or excursions.

At first glance it appears to be yet another of those attractively-produced little books aimed at the Christmas market - the sort of thing which is opened with a laugh but soon bores. However, anyone who loves books will find plenty to interest here, some light and inconsequential facts (the first spliff in literature, the shortest poem, the longest book etc), but even these, with Sutherland's immense store of knowledge, are set in a context which illuminate rather merely amuse. (and incidentally, the first spliff appears in Rider Haggard's King Solomon's Mines and the longest book is Clarissa by Samuel Richardson and is about a million words long).

I loved the chapter on food, "Literary Baked Meats" which describes the gastronomic preferences of various writers and left me wanting to go to the Savoy to have an Omelette Arnold Bennett (a wish which is easily denied on discovering that it costs about £50 - and can also be made at home). Sutherland has found are many food-based "curiosities", not least discovering foods which were first mentioned in literature and then went on to become products in real-life. For example, the early science-fiction novel The Coming Race (1871) by Bulwer-Lytton shares the "hollow-earth" theme of Jules Verne's Journey To the Centre of the Earth, and describes a life-giving fluid under the earth's crust called "vril". Scottish manufacturer John Lawson Johnston saw a business opportunity there and added "Bov" (for beef) to the front of Bulwer-Lytton's "vril" and as they say, the rest is history.

IMG_4014 Stories like this kept me entertained while on holiday in France a couple of weeks ago. I enjoyed the chapter "Tools of the Trade" in which Sutherland gives his readers such information as the first book written on a typewriter (Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer) and the first authors to use computers (with Desmond Bagley and Arthur C Clarke being the main contenders). I have to say, that for the latter category, I remember reading an article by Terry Pratchett in a mid-80s computer magazine about his use of the Amstrad PCW.

There are 13 chapters in the book including Mammon in the Book Trade (interesting examples of produce placement in novels), Name Games (including pseudonyms and the stories behind their choice), Literary Records (worst novelist ever, longest time to write a book, most misquoted etc). These are not presented in list format but are well-written self-contained pieces. Sutherland acknowledges the help of Messrs Google and Xerox but I don't think anyone without Sutherland's vast literary knowledge would have been able to come up with such a comprehensive set of topics or researched them to the same depth as him. I found this a very satisfying read which will occupy an important place in my "books about books" category.

Since its publication in 1946, George Orwell's fable of a workers' revolution gone wrong has been recognized as a classic of modern political satire. Fuelled by Orwell's intense disillusionment with Soviet Communism, Animal Farm is a nearly perfect piece of writing--both an engaging story and an allegory that actually works. When the downtrodden beasts of Manor Farm oust their drunken human master and take over management of the land, all are awash in collectivist zeal. Everyone willingly works overtime, productivity soars and for one brief, glorious season, every belly is full. The animals' Seven Commandment credo is painted in big white letters on the barn. All animals are equal. No animal shall drink alcohol, wear clothes, sleep in a bed or kill a fellow four-footed creature. Those that go upon four legs or wings are friends and the two-legged are, by definition, the enemy. Too soon, however, the pigs, who have styled themselves leaders by virtue of their intelligence, succumb to the temptations of privilege and power. "We pigs are brainworkers. The whole management and organisation of the farm depend on us. Day and night, we are watching over your welfare. It is for your sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples." While this swinish brotherhood sells out the revolution, cynically editing the Seven Commandments to excuse their violence and greed, the common animals are once again left hungry and exhausted, no better off than in the days when humans ran the farm. Satire Animal Farm may be, but it's a stony reader who remains unmoved when the stalwart workhorse, Boxer, having given his all to his comrades, is sold to the glue factory to buy booze for the pigs. Orwell's view of Communism is bleak indeed, but given the history of the Russian people since 1917, his pessimism has an air of prophecy. --Joyce Thompson

a book about Barthes and not about photography, 06 Jul 2008
To get a feeling for this book read the most negative coments from reviews of his "Mythologies" and you'll be on the right track. Incorrect assertions are presented as fact. Incorrect conclusions are built on those assertions. Language is used to obfuscate rather than elucidate meaning (if you don't know those words don't even try to read Barthes). Actually, language appears to be used more to say "I am clever." Clever people communicate clearly, monsieur!

Unbearable, and you won't learn a thing about photography, which he more or less rejects in his opening chapters in favour of contemplating his own navel



I'm sure it's very good if I could only understand it, 12 Jul 2007
This book was recommended to me by a philosopher friend who thought I might enjoy it as I'm about to embark on a photography course. I'm not a serious academic, but I'm not an idiot either and I have to admit I found this a pretty tough read. I understood the general meaning, but felt the language and structure of the book meant that I missed out on being able to really appreciate what seems like quite an exceptional piece of work with some fascinating alternate views. I'd do your research on Barthes before you buy this to determine whether you might or might not be comfortable with his style, otherwise, give it a go - might just take a couple of reads!

A Classic in the Theory of Photography., 19 Sep 2000
Barthes wrote this book out of urge to discover the real nature of Photography. In the first part of the book he establishes his own system to do that. This system is based on two "cathegories" that Photography contains, studium and punctum. In the second part he wants to come closer to eidos, the nature of Photography. Therefor he takes one of his photographies, showing his mother as a child. Out of his emotions by this photography he builds the theory, often comparing it with another art, Film and sometimes also with Theatre. The book can also be recomended to wider public, not only philosophers, because it is written in a simple, understandable way, but is still opening some major questions regarding its subject.

A con, 01 Nov 2008
Where here the blunt Aussie frankness that Germaine Greer has celebrated and been respected for all of her life?
When writing history, it is sometimes almost acceptable to now and then fill in gaps by positing things to make sense of an action, but this disingenuous offering is the worst `history' book I have ever read in that it is 99% conjecture - positing - and 1% truism.
After 400 pages we know exactly nothing more about Shakespeare or his wife, than we did - than anybody did - before. Using highly irritating devices like: `if... we might suppose... it is not inconceivable... I would argue...' etc. ad nauseam, Greer attempts to create a woman whom she can find sympathy with, for no other reason than to defend her against the criticisms of other historians who clearly know no more about their subject than Greer does.
The reader does not care about individuals in the records who have no bearing on the facts about William Shakespeare or Ann Hathaway and are put in as ballast. But anyone interested in the truth will be appalled and insulted by the deceitful way Greer uses suggestion to give substance to her imagination and thus mislead him or her.


Very convincing, compassionate and scholarly, 20 May 2008
I found this a very convincing portrait of a forgotten life and of an often unfairly villified woman. Before I read this book I hadn't realised I fell into the category of what Greer calls 'Bardolaters', people who assume that Shakespeare was such a genius and that his wife was an illiterate cunning woman who trapped a gullible boy into a marriage that he hated and couldn't wait to get away from. Throughout the book, Greer gives Ann her proper title - Ann Shakespeare. I have never seen her referred to as anything other than Ann Hathaway by other writers. This is a powerful statement that puts the author on the Ann's side and enables the reader to re-evaluate what they think of Ann and her life and marriage.
Greer rightly praises Ann's achievements, unnoticed until now: she bore and brought up 3 children through plague and famine on her own, she lived in the same small town all her married life without a hint of scandal and she seems to have not only lived, but prospered, keeping herself and her family with no help from her husband.
Greer also points out that Ann cannot have felt abandoned by her husband as there was a legal process for claiming abandonment for wives in that situation and Ann did not initiate that proceeding.
Much of the book is taken up with accounts of women contemporary with Ann as a way of extrapolating what her life might have been like and this can become confusing and occasionally a bit tedious, which is why I've given the book 4 stars and not 5.
If you want a balanced and compassionate look at the life of a woman who has had a very bad press since the 17th Century, you won't find a better book than this. I highly recommend it for anyone interested in how ordinary people lived at that time and how this extraordinary woman might have lived as well.

Dire, 16 Apr 2008
Although interested in social history and women, this book was a great disappointment. As one reviewer has said (favourably!), this book is just reams of anecdotal information that may, possibly, could be relevant interspersed with inflamatory judgements against other scholars. The book demonstrates no editorial control whatsoever and exists on a presumption that it will sell because of the author and a nice cover. As a broad reader who enjoys serious books based on facts and well constructed argument this was a very unusual disappointment. That said, I buy the argument she made but think it could have been argued a lot cleaner and better. I pity the teacher who will use it in class to stimulate her Shakespeare students as unless carefully used, it could have exactly the opposite effect!

Jarring and fanciful, 18 Mar 2008
Sadly, a rather embarassing performance, this, in the long tradition of half-baked and almost entirely fanciful Shakespearean speculation (A.L. Rowse etc). Greer presents suppositions as fact, and her assertive tone is really jarring, hectoring and trying to compel, rather than drawing the reader in; and there's a nastily dismissive approach to fellow critics and historians (which she isn't). Greer's scholarly work on the seventeenth century writers is sure-footed and interesting. By contrast, this book will be quickly forgotten, I hope. And of course, it's unlucky in that it appears shortly after three genuinely excellent books on Shakespeare: Charles Nicholl's The Lodger, Shapiro's 1599, and Frank Kermode's little book on Shakespeare's Language.

shoddy scholarshio, 22 Jan 2008
This is simply a flight of fancy on Ms Greer's part.She sneers dismissively at the work of other scholars, sometimes in quite an insulting tone, while putting forward her own ideas, most of which can have little basis in fact. She insists that they provide proof for their conclusions while then, often in the next sentence, putting forward an outlandish idea for which she has no proof! She contradicts herself, sometimes as blatently as from page to page. Like the rest of us, she knows very little hard facts about Ann Hathaway, so she looks at what other women of the time did and imagines that Hathaway did them all- from money lending to growing a mulberry tree plantation to brewing beer to being a medicine woman, with plenty of other options in between. However, apart from her rather Mills & Boonish take on the Shakespeares' married life, the most annoying thing about this work is the rubbishing of others' research while replacing it with a house of cards. As a scholar, Ms Greer has let her past work down very badly.

Interesting and enjoyable read, 27 Nov 2008
I found this book a very interesting and enjoyable read. The author discusses literary fiction under a number of themes and he usually has a page of fiction taken form the work of a particular author and he then spends several pages discussing aspects of this. He takes extracts from a large number of authors and their works and these range from eighteen century novelists right up to contemporary novelists. I already had the vast bulk of the works that he discussed in my collection but there were several that I hadn't either purchased or read before (not always the same things as far as I am concerned). I ordered a set of three novels in one volume by Henry Green and another one by Michael Frayn on the strength of reading this book.

Horrible, 19 Nov 2008
The book might be cheap but it isn't worth the amount of money asked. I thought I would get an idea how to write a novel, just some insight and advise, and instead I get nothing. The author with great care, talks about ancient books, that are probably very important books, but are of no relevance really to anyone trying to write for fun and in our current century.
I don't need to know who or why someone wrote something in 100 years ago and while Jane Astin was an excellent writer, I don't want to know about her style or what it is called.
I had been looking for some qualified advise what to do in writing a story and what not to do, what techniques to apply and how certain sentence structurs could be used, I do not care to know how ancient English worked.
Therefore, while the book is most certainly well researched and if there is an interest in how or why some writers from a long time ago chose to write in a certain way, then I would recommend it but otherwise, it is a waste of money.
No valid points I can use for myself, just grief that I have wasted my money on it.
And I never leave any comments like this but this time, I felt I really had to.

Indispensable for the novelist, 14 Dec 2007
Terms are bandied around for different forms of novel writing, and you dismiss them as 'jargon', or perhaps 'gobbledegook', and move on. It's only when you've actually written a novel that doesn't fit the standard genre - historical, fantasy, adventure, thriller, etc - that you wish you'd paid more attention. If you've completed writing such a book without having recourse to the Art of Fiction, you'll need it at this point, otherwise you might be excused for thinking you've ploughed a completely new literary furrow. So, before you start preparing your witty acceptance speech on winning the Booker, do read David Lodge and you'll learn that someone famous has been there before you and that, in some cases, they have been lauded and slated by the critics in equal proportions.

You'll learn about Magic Realism, Stream of Consciousness, The Reader in the Text, Teenage Skaz etc etc. There's much in the Art of Fiction for the more orthodox writer, too. His essays are beautifully written, very clear and he uses well-known illustrative texts. I can thoroughly recommend this one for the discerning writer and reader.

Interesting and insightful, 09 Jul 2007
"The Art of Fiction" is divided into 50 chapters, each devoted to a different aspect or theme in fiction (in this case primarily novel-writing). Some of these themes are standard topics: 'Beginning', 'Point of View', 'Introducing a Character', 'Chapters' and 'Ending' for example. Others are more unusual: including 'Suspense', 'Symbolism', 'Epiphany', 'The Telephone' as well as more technical-sounding topics such as 'Aporia' and 'Intertextuality'. Through these themes Lodge explores the construction of the novel and underlines the sheer variety of approaches taken by different writers over the course of time.

Each chapter is drawn from an article in Lodge's own newspaper column, which means that the subject matter is easily accessible and digestible for the casual reader. Lodge's style is easy to read and follow and he occasionally intersperses his analysis with his own anecdotes. This is 'a book to browse in, and dip into', as Lodge himself explains, which assumes very little prior knowledge of the texts concerned. Indeed his subjects are very diverse, ranging from Henry Fielding in the 18th century, and Victorian writers such as Brontë and Dickens, all the way to 20th-century authors including, among many others, George Orwell and Kazuo Ishiguro. However, it is not necessary to have read all - or even any - of these texts, as Lodge begins each chapter with a relevant passage quoted in full to illustrate his point.

The goal of "The Art of Fiction" is to enhance the reader's understanding of modern literature, and not explicitly to teach lessons in composition to aspiring authors. Nevertheless, for any writer it is always instructive to dissect those works which have gone before, and this book would therefore be of tremendous use.

Everything considered, "The Art of Fiction" is a worthy addition to the bookshelf of anyone with an interest in deconstructing how modern fiction works - either the casual reader or the student. Recommended.

Interesting and insightful, 23 Jun 2007
"The Art of Fiction" is divided into 50 chapters, each devoted to a different aspect or theme in fiction (in this case primarily novel-writing). Some of these themes are standard topics: 'Beginning', 'Point of View', 'Introducing a Character', 'Chapters' and 'Ending' for example. Others are more unusual: including 'Suspense', 'Symbolism', 'Epiphany', 'The Telephone' as well as more technical-sounding topics such as 'Aporia' and 'Intertextuality'. Through these themes Lodge explores the construction of the novel and underlines the sheer variety of approaches taken by different writers over the course of time.

Each chapter is drawn from an article in Lodge's own newspaper column, which means that the subject matter is easily accessible and digestible for the casual reader. Lodge's style is easy to read and follow and he occasionally intersperses his analysis with his own anecdotes. This is 'a book to browse in, and dip into', as Lodge himself explains, which assumes very little prior knowledge of the texts concerned. Indeed his subjects are very diverse, ranging from Henry Fielding in the 18th century, and Victorian writers such as Brontë and Dickens, all the way to 20th-century authors including, among many others, George Orwell and Kazuo Ishiguro. However, it is not necessary to have read all - or even any - of these texts, as Lodge begins each chapter with a relevant passage quoted in full to illustrate his point.

The goal of "The Art of Fiction" is to enhance the reader's understanding of modern literature, and not explicitly to teach lessons in composition to aspiring authors. Nevertheless, for any writer it is always instructive to dissect those works which have gone before, and this book would therefore be of tremendous use.

Everything considered, "The Art of Fiction" is a worthy addition to the bookshelf of anyone with an interest in deconstructing how modern fiction works - either the casual reader or the student. Recommended.

A great gift for book-lovers of all types, 06 Oct 2008
I always enjoy John Sutherland's writings having first come across his literary columns in The Guardian. I've already read his How to Read a Novel and The Boy Who Loved Books, so when Curiosities of Literature came out a month or two ago it was a bit of a "must have". In fact it turned out to be the perfect book to take on holiday, being very easy to dip into and always providing entertainment in odd moments reclaimed from the swimming pool or excursions.

At first glance it appears to be yet another of those attractively-produced little books aimed at the Christmas market - the sort of thing which is opened with a laugh but soon bores. However, anyone who loves books will find plenty to interest here, some light and inconsequential facts (the first spliff in literature, the shortest poem, the longest book etc), but even these, with Sutherland's immense store of knowledge, are set in a context which illuminate rather merely amuse. (and incidentally, the first spliff appears in Rider Haggard's King Solomon's Mines and the longest book is Clarissa by Samuel Richardson and is about a million words long).

I loved the chapter on food, "Literary Baked Meats" which describes the gastronomic preferences of various writers and left me wanting to go to the Savoy to have an Omelette Arnold Bennett (a wish which is easily denied on discovering that it costs about £50 - and can also be made at home). Sutherland has found are many food-based "curiosities", not least discovering foods which were first mentioned in literature and then went on to become products in real-life. For example, the early science-fiction novel The Coming Race (1871) by Bulwer-Lytton shares the "hollow-earth" theme of Jules Verne's Journey To the Centre of the Earth, and describes a life-giving fluid under the earth's crust called "vril". Scottish manufacturer John Lawson Johnston saw a business opportunity there and added "Bov" (for beef) to the front of Bulwer-Lytton's "vril" and as they say, the rest is history.

IMG_4014 Stories like this kept me entertained while on holiday in France a couple of weeks ago. I enjoyed the chapter "Tools of the Trade" in which Sutherland gives his readers such information as the first book written on a typewriter (Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer) and the first authors to use computers (with Desmond Bagley and Arthur C Clarke being the main contenders). I have to say, that for the latter category, I remember reading an article by Terry Pratchett in a mid-80s computer magazine about his use of the Amstrad PCW.

There are 13 chapters in the book including Mammon in the Book Trade (interesting examples of produce placement in novels), Name Games (including pseudonyms and the stories behind their choice), Literary Records (worst novelist ever, longest time to write a book, most misquoted etc). These are not presented in list format but are well-written self-contained pieces. Sutherland acknowledges the help of Messrs Google and Xerox but I don't think anyone without Sutherland's vast literary knowledge would have been able to come up with such a comprehensive set of topics or researched them to the same depth as him. I found this a very satisfying read which will occupy an important place in my "books about books" category.

Animal Farm, Probally my favourite book!, 03 Dec 2008
This book by Eric Blair (AKA George Orwell) is probally the best book i have ever read! George Orwell is such a brilliant & Detailed writter, not only that but Animal farm is good for all ages, My 78 Mum loves it, I love it and my two children love it. A****

Political satire at its best, 06 Jun 2008
I first read George Orwell's Animal Farm in high school. And even though I was far more interested in Molly Ringwald films and boys, I quickly came to appreciate Orwell's subtle humor. Fast forward to 2008 and I'm reading Animal Farm to my almost 8 year-old daughter, who equally enjoyed it. This is political satire at its best. What's more, it's not condescending or judgmental. Orwell doesn't tell you what to think, he just sets the scene and allows you to reach whatever conclusion you come to.

And here's the real beauty of this classic tale.... scholars and politicos laud it, yet 8 year-old little girls can still comprehend and enjoy it. That, perhaps more than anything else, is its finest point.

It is clear that Orwell is sadly misinterpreted by many readers, 20 Mar 2008
Orwell was a socialist and fought with the POUM and was a member of the ILP. This quote is from the preface of the 1947 Ukrainian Edition of Animal Farm:

Indeed, in my opinion, nothing has contributed so much to the corruption of the original idea of Socialism as the belief that Russia is a Socialist country and that every act of its rulers must be excused, if not imitated.

And so for the past ten years I have been convinced that the destruction of the Soviet myth was essential if we wanted a revival of the Socialist movement.



The idea that Animal Farm is a critique of socialism, therefore, is complete corruption of what Orwell was arguing. What Orwell was criticising was the counter-revolution that took place in Russia under Stalin (Napoleon). This book should be read in its proper context to see the message that Orwell is trying to present. It is more subtle than simply 'socialism/communism is bad'.

Can be enjoyed at more than one level, 21 Oct 2007
Timeless classic that can be enjoyed at various levels: adults, especially those familiar with Soviet history, can appreciate the political allegory, while children could still appreciate this as an amusing and frightening tale of animals taking over from people. Orwell's original foreword, reproduced at the end of this edition, is also worth reading for its salutary lesson on how liberal intellectuals can sometimes fool themselves into supporting the most illiberal regimes.

Animal Farm, 17 Sep 2007
The book isn't bad. i ended up reading it to my daughter. she loved it. George's works are really quite dark. "Animal farm" is not a satire its more of a Dark drama. its good for a quick read but it lacks feeling.
read it if you haven't got anything better to do.

a book about Barthes and not about photography, 06 Jul 2008
To get a feeling for this book read the most negative coments from reviews of his "Mythologies" and you'll be on the right track. Incorrect assertions are presented as fact. Incorrect conclusions are built on those assertions. Language is used to obfuscate rather than elucidate meaning (if you don't know those words don't even try to read Barthes). Actually, language appears to be used more to say "I am clever." Clever people communicate clearly, monsieur!

Unbearable, and you won't learn a thing about photography, which he more or less rejects in his opening chapters in favour of contemplating his own navel



I'm sure it's very good if I could only understand it, 12 Jul 2007
This book was recommended to me by a philosopher friend who thought I might enjoy it as I'm about to embark on a photography course. I'm not a serious academic, but I'm not an idiot either and I have to admit I found this a pretty tough read. I understood the general meaning, but felt the language and structure of the book meant that I missed out on being able to really appreciate what seems like quite an exceptional piece of work with some fascinating alternate views. I'd do your research on Barthes before you buy this to determine whether you might or might not be comfortable with his style, otherwise, give it a go - might just take a couple of reads!

A Classic in the Theory of Photography., 19 Sep 2000
Barthes wrote this book out of urge to discover the real nature of Photography. In the first part of the book he establishes his own system to do that. This system is based on two "cathegories" that Photography contains, studium and punctum. In the second part he wants to come closer to eidos, the nature of Photography. Therefor he takes one of his photographies, showing his mother as a child. Out of his emotions by this photography he builds the theory, often comparing it with another art, Film and sometimes also with Theatre. The book can also be recomended to wider public, not only philosophers, because it is written in a simple, understandable way, but is still opening some major questions regarding its subject.

A con, 01 Nov 2008
Where here the blunt Aussie frankness that Germaine Greer has celebrated and been respected for all of her life?
When writing history, it is sometimes almost acceptable to now and then fill in gaps by positing things to make sense of an action, but this disingenuous offering is the worst `history' book I have ever read in that it is 99% conjecture - positing - and 1% truism.
After 400 pages we know exactly nothing more about Shakespeare or his wife, than we did - than anybody did - before. Using highly irritating devices like: `if... we might suppose... it is not inconceivable... I would argue...' etc. ad nauseam, Greer attempts to create a woman whom she can find sympathy with, for no other reason than to defend her against the criticisms of other historians who clearly know no more about their subject than Greer does.
The reader does not care about individuals in the records who have no bearing on the facts about William Shakespeare or Ann Hathaway and are put in as ballast. But anyone interested in the truth will be appalled and insulted by the deceitful way Greer uses suggestion to give substance to her imagination and thus mislead him or her.


Very convincing, compassionate and scholarly, 20 May 2008
I found this a very convincing portrait of a forgotten life and of an often unfairly villified woman. Before I read this book I hadn't realised I fell into the category of what Greer calls 'Bardolaters', people who assume that Shakespeare was such a genius and that his wife was an illiterate cunning woman who trapped a gullible boy into a marriage that he hated and couldn't wait to get away from. Throughout the book, Greer gives Ann her proper title - Ann Shakespeare. I have never seen her referred to as anything other than Ann Hathaway by other writers. This is a powerful statement that puts the author on the Ann's side and enables the reader to re-evaluate what they think of Ann and her life and marriage.
Greer rightly praises Ann's achievements, unnoticed until now: she bore and brought up 3 children through plague and famine on her own, she lived in the same small town all her married life without a hint of scandal and she seems to have not only lived, but prospered, keeping herself and her family with no help from her husband.
Greer also points out that Ann cannot have felt abandoned by her husband as there was a legal process for claiming abandonment for wives in that situation and Ann did not initiate that proceeding.
Much of the book is taken up with accounts of women contemporary with Ann as a way of extrapolating what her life might have been like and this can become confusing and occasionally a bit tedious, which is why I've given the book 4 stars and not 5.
If you want a balanced and compassionate look at the life of a woman who has had a very bad press since the 17th Century, you won't find a better book than this. I highly recommend it for anyone interested in how ordinary people lived at that time and how this extraordinary woman might have lived as well.

Dire, 16 Apr 2008
Although interested in social history and women, this book was a great disappointment. As one reviewer has said (favourably!), this book is just reams of anecdotal information that may, possibly, could be relevant interspersed with inflamatory judgements against other scholars. The book demonstrates no editorial control whatsoever and exists on a presumption that it will sell because of the author and a nice cover. As a broad reader who enjoys serious books based on facts and well constructed argument this was a very unusual disappointment. That said, I buy the argument she made but think it could have been argued a lot cleaner and better. I pity the teacher who will use it in class to stimulate her Shakespeare students as unless carefully used, it could have exactly the opposite effect!

Jarring and fanciful, 18 Mar 2008
Sadly, a rather embarassing performance, this, in the long tradition of half-baked and almost entirely fanciful Shakespearean speculation (A.L. Rowse etc). Greer presents suppositions as fact, and her assertive tone is really jarring, hectoring and trying to compel, rather than drawing the reader in; and there's a nastily dismissive approach to fellow critics and historians (which she isn't). Greer's scholarly work on the seventeenth century writers is sure-footed and interesting. By contrast, this book will be quickly forgotten, I hope. And of course, it's unlucky in that it appears shortly after three genuinely excellent books on Shakespeare: Charles Nicholl's The Lodger, Shapiro's 1599, and Frank Kermode's little book on Shakespeare's Language.

shoddy scholarshio, 22 Jan 2008
This is simply a flight of fancy on Ms Greer's part.She sneers dismissively at the work of other scholars, sometimes in quite an insulting tone, while putting forward her own ideas, most of which can have little basis in fact. She insists that they provide proof for their conclusions while then, often in the next sentence, putting forward an outlandish idea for which she has no proof! She contradicts herself, sometimes as blatently as from page to page. Like the rest of us, she knows very little hard facts about Ann Hathaway, so she looks at what other women of the time did and imagines that Hathaway did them all- from money lending to growing a mulberry tree plantation to brewing beer to being a medicine woman, with plenty of other options in between. However, apart from her rather Mills & Boonish take on the Shakespeares' married life, the most annoying thing about this work is the rubbishing of others' research while replacing it with a house of cards. As a scholar, Ms Greer has let her past work down very badly.

Interesting and enjoyable read, 27 Nov 2008
I found this book a very interesting and enjoyable read. The author discusses literary fiction under a number of themes and he usually has a page of fiction taken form the work of a particular author and he then spends several pages discussing aspects of this. He takes extracts from a large number of authors and their works and these range from eighteen century novelists right up to contemporary novelists. I already had the vast bulk of the works that he discussed in my collection but there were several that I hadn't either purchased or read before (not always the same things as far as I am concerned). I ordered a set of three novels in one volume by Henry Green and another one by Michael Frayn on the strength of reading this book.

Horrible, 19 Nov 2008
The book might be cheap but it isn't worth the amount of money asked. I thought I would get an idea how to write a novel, just some insight and advise, and instead I get nothing. The author with great care, talks about ancient books, that are probably very important books, but are of no relevance really to anyone trying to write for fun and in our current century.
I don't need to know who or why someone wrote something in 100 years ago and while Jane Astin was an excellent writer, I don't want to know about her style or what it is called.
I had been looking for some qualified advise what to do in writing a story and what not to do, what techniques to apply and how certain sentence structurs could be used, I do not care to know how ancient English worked.
Therefore, while the book is most certainly well researched and if there is an interest in how or why some writers from a long time ago chose to write in a certain way, then I would recommend it but otherwise, it is a waste of money.
No valid points I can use for myself, just grief that I have wasted my money on it.
And I never leave any comments like this but this time, I felt I really had to.

Indispensable for the novelist, 14 Dec 2007
Terms are bandied around for different forms of novel writing, and you dismiss them as 'jargon', or perhaps 'gobbledegook', and move on. It's only when you've actually written a novel that doesn't fit the standard genre - historical, fantasy, adventure, thriller, etc - that you wish you'd paid more attention. If you've completed writing such a book without having recourse to the Art of Fiction, you'll need it at this point, otherwise you might be excused for thinking you've ploughed a completely new literary furrow. So, before you start preparing your witty acceptance speech on winning the Booker, do read David Lodge and you'll learn that someone famous has been there before you and that, in some cases, they have been lauded and slated by the critics in equal proportions.

You'll learn about Magic Realism, Stream of Consciousness, The Reader in the Text, Teenage Skaz etc etc. There's much in the Art of Fiction for the more orthodox writer, too. His essays are beautifully written, very clear and he uses well-known illustrative texts. I can thoroughly recommend this one for the discerning writer and reader.

Interesting and insightful, 09 Jul 2007
"The Art of Fiction" is divided into 50 chapters, each devoted to a different aspect or theme in fiction (in this case primarily novel-writing). Some of these themes are standard topics: 'Beginning', 'Point of View', 'Introducing a Character', 'Chapters' and 'Ending' for example. Others are more unusual: including 'Suspense', 'Symbolism', 'Epiphany', 'The Telephone' as well as more technical-sounding topics such as 'Aporia' and 'Intertextuality'. Through these themes Lodge explores the construction of the novel and underlines the sheer variety of approaches taken by different writers over the course of time.

Each chapter is drawn from an article in Lodge's own newspaper column, which means that the subject matter is easily accessible and digestible for the casual reader. Lodge's style is easy to read and follow and he occasionally intersperses his analysis with his own anecdotes. This is 'a book to browse in, and dip into', as Lodge himself explains, which assumes very little prior knowledge of the texts concerned. Indeed his subjects are very diverse, ranging from Henry Fielding in the 18th century, and Victorian writers such as Brontë and Dickens, all the way to 20th-century authors including, among many others, George Orwell and Kazuo Ishiguro. However, it is not necessary to have read all - or even any - of these texts, as Lodge begins each chapter with a relevant passage quoted in full to illustrate his point.

The goal of "The Art of Fiction" is to enhance the reader's understanding of modern literature, and not explicitly to teach lessons in composition to aspiring authors. Nevertheless, for any writer it is always instructive to dissect those works which have gone before, and this book would therefore be of tremendous use.

Everything considered, "The Art of Fiction" is a worthy addition to the bookshelf of anyone with an interest in deconstructing how modern fiction works - either the casual reader or the student. Recommended.

Interesting and insightful, 23 Jun 2007
"The Art of Fiction" is divided into 50 chapters, each devoted to a different aspect or theme in fiction (in this case primarily novel-writing). Some of these themes are standard topics: 'Beginning', 'Point of View', 'Introducing a Character', 'Chapters' and 'Ending' for example. Others are more unusual: including 'Suspense', 'Symbolism', 'Epiphany', 'The Telephone' as well as more technical-sounding topics such as 'Aporia' and 'Intertextuality'. Through these themes Lodge explores the construction of the novel and underlines the sheer variety of approaches taken by different writers over the course of time.

Each chapter is drawn from an article in Lodge's own newspaper column, which means that the subject matter is easily accessible and digestible for the casual reader. Lodge's style is easy to read and follow and he occasionally intersperses his analysis with his own anecdotes. This is 'a book to browse in, and dip into', as Lodge himself explains, which assumes very little prior knowledge of the texts concerned. Indeed his subjects are very diverse, ranging from Henry Fielding in the 18th century, and Victorian writers such as Brontë and Dickens, all the way to 20th-century authors including, among many others, George Orwell and Kazuo Ishiguro. However, it is not necessary to have read all - or even any - of these texts, as Lodge begins each chapter with a relevant passage quoted in full to illustrate his point.

The goal of "The Art of Fiction" is to enhance the reader's understanding of modern literature, and not explicitly to teach lessons in composition to aspiring authors. Nevertheless, for any writer it is always instructive to dissect those works which have gone before, and this book would therefore be of tremendous use.

Everything considered, "The Art of Fiction" is a worthy addition to the bookshelf of anyone with an interest in deconstructing how modern fiction works - either the casual reader or the student. Recommended.

A great gift for book-lovers of all types, 06 Oct 2008
I always enjoy John Sutherland's writings having first come across his literary columns in The Guardian. I've already read his How to Read a Novel and The Boy Who Loved Books, so when Curiosities of Literature came out a month or two ago it was a bit of a "must have". In fact it turned out to be the perfect book to take on holiday, being very easy to dip into and always providing entertainment in odd moments reclaimed from the swimming pool or excursions.

At first glance it appears to be yet another of those attractively-produced little books aimed at the Christmas market - the sort of thing which is opened with a laugh but soon bores. However, anyone who loves books will find plenty to interest here, some light and inconsequential facts (the first spliff in literature, the shortest poem, the longest book etc), but even these, with Sutherland's immense store of knowledge, are set in a context which illuminate rather merely amuse. (and incidentally, the first spliff appears in Rider Haggard's King Solomon's Mines and the longest book is Clarissa by Samuel Richardson and is about a million words long).

I loved the chapter on food, "Literary Baked Meats" which describes the gastronomic preferences of various writers and left me wanting to go to the Savoy to have an Omelette Arnold Bennett (a wish which is easily denied on discovering that it costs about £50 - and can also be made at home). Sutherland has found are many food-based "curiosities", not least discovering foods which were first mentioned in literature and then went on to become products in real-life. For example, the early science-fiction novel The Coming Race (1871) by Bulwer-Lytton shares the "hollow-earth" theme of Jules Verne's Journey To the Centre of the Earth, and describes a life-giving fluid under the earth's crust called "vril". Scottish manufacturer John Lawson Johnston saw a business opportunity there and added "Bov" (for beef) to the front of Bulwer-Lytton's "vril" and as they say, the rest is history.

IMG_4014 Stories like this kept me entertained while on holiday in France a couple of weeks ago. I enjoyed the chapter "Tools of the Trade" in which Sutherland gives his readers such information as the first book written on a typewriter (Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer) and the first authors to use computers (with Desmond Bagley and Arthur C Clarke being the main contenders). I have to say, that for the latter category, I remember reading an article by Terry Pratchett in a mid-80s computer magazine about his use of the Amstrad PCW.

There are 13 chapters in the book including Mammon in the Book Trade (interesting examples of produce placement in novels), Name Games (including pseudonyms and the stories behind their choice), Literary Records (worst novelist ever, longest time to write a book, most misquoted etc). These are not presented in list format but are well-written self-contained pieces. Sutherland acknowledges the help of Messrs Google and Xerox but I don't think anyone without Sutherland's vast literary knowledge would have been able to come up with such a comprehensive set of topics or researched them to the same depth as him. I found this a very satisfying read which will occupy an important place in my "books about books" category.

Animal Farm, Probally my favourite book!, 03 Dec 2008
This book by Eric Blair (AKA George Orwell) is probally the best book i have ever read! George Orwell is such a brilliant & Detailed writter, not only that but Animal farm is good for all ages, My 78 Mum loves it, I love it and my two children love it. A****

Political satire at its best, 06 Jun 2008
I first read George Orwell's Animal Farm in high school. And even though I was far more interested in Molly Ringwald films and boys, I quickly came to appreciate Orwell's subtle humor. Fast forward to 2008 and I'm reading Animal Farm to my almost 8 year-old daughter, who equally enjoyed it. This is political satire at its best. What's more, it's not condescending or judgmental. Orwell doesn't tell you what to think, he just sets the scene and allows you to reach whatever conclusion you come to.

And here's the real beauty of this classic tale.... scholars and politicos laud it, yet 8 year-old little girls can still comprehend and enjoy it. That, perhaps more than anything else, is its finest point.

It is clear that Orwell is sadly misinterpreted by many readers, 20 Mar 2008
Orwell was a socialist and fought with the POUM and was a member of the ILP. This quote is from the preface of the 1947 Ukrainian Edition of Animal Farm:

Indeed, in my opinion, nothing has contributed so much to the corruption of the original idea of Socialism as the belief that Russia is a Socialist country and that every act of its rulers must be excused, if not imitated.

And so for the past ten years I have been convinced that the destruction of the Soviet myth was essential if we wanted a revival of the Socialist movement.



The idea that Animal Farm is a critique of socialism, therefore, is complete corruption of what Orwell was arguing. What Orwell was criticising was the counter-revolution that took place in Russia under Stalin (Napoleon). This book should be read in its proper context to see the message that Orwell is trying to present. It is more subtle than simply 'socialism/communism is bad'.

Can be enjoyed at more than one level, 21 Oct 2007
Timeless classic that can be enjoyed at various levels: adults, especially those familiar with Soviet history, can appreciate the political allegory, while children could still appreciate this as an amusing and frightening tale of animals taking over from people. Orwell's original foreword, reproduced at the end of this edition, is also worth reading for its salutary lesson on how liberal intellectuals can sometimes fool themselves into supporting the most illiberal regimes.

Animal Farm, 17 Sep 2007
The book isn't bad. i ended up reading it to my daughter. she loved it. George's works are really quite dark. "Animal farm" is not a satire its more of a Dark drama. its good for a quick read but it lacks feeling.
read it if you haven't got anything better to do.

An interesting little number..., 02 Jan 2004
This book is an interesting collaboration of philosophical ideas and graphic design.
It offers a condensed retelling of McLuhan's basic theories. I would recommend this book as it is easily accessable and readable as much for the use of imagery as for the use of words. If you want a series and indepth look at McLuhans work then 'the mechanical bride' or 'understanding media' would be far more suitable as they contain far more information. But i still highly regard this book as almost a conceptual piece.
A classic and highly memorable work as well as a fun and insightful read, highly recommended.

Essentially thought-provoking, in both design and content, 14 Jan 2002
Marshall McLuhan and Quentin Fiore's though-provoking analysis of "media". From how it can influence your opinions to how you interpret a corporate logo. An essential read that makes you sit up and think, and is still very relevant today, considering that it was first published in 1967.

a book about Barthes and not about photography, 06 Jul 2008
To get a feeling for this book read the most negative coments from reviews of his "Mythologies" and you'll be on the right track. Incorrect assertions are presented as fact. Incorrect conclusions are built on those assertions. Language is used to obfuscate rather than elucidate meaning (if you don't know those words don't even try to read Barthes). Actually, language appears to be used more to say "I am clever." Clever people communicate clearly, monsieur!

Unbearable, and you won't learn a thing about photography, which he more or less rejects in his opening chapters in favour of contemplating his own navel



I'm sure it's very good if I could only understand it, 12 Jul 2007
This book was recommended to me by a philosopher friend who thought I might enjoy it as I'm about to embark on a photography course. I'm not a serious academic, but I'm not an idiot either and I have to admit I found this a pretty tough read. I understood the general meaning, but felt the language and structure of the book meant that I missed out on being able to really appreciate what seems like quite an exceptional piece of work with some fascinating alternate views. I'd do your research on Barthes before you buy this to determine whether you might or might not be comfortable with his style, otherwise, give it a go - might just take a couple of reads!

A Classic in the Theory of Photography., 19 Sep 2000
Barthes wrote this book out of urge to discover the real nature of Photography. In the first part of the book he establishes his own system to do that. This system is based on two "cathegories" that Photography contains, studium and punctum. In the second part he wants to come closer to eidos, the nature of Photography. Therefor he takes one of his photographies, showing his mother as a child. Out of his emotions by this photography he builds the theory, often comparing it with another art, Film and sometimes also with Theatre. The book can also be recomended to wider public, not only philosophers, because it is written in a simple, understandable way, but is still opening some major questions regarding its subject.

A con, 01 Nov 2008
Where here the blunt Aussie frankness that Germaine Greer has celebrated and been respected for all of her life?
When writing history, it is sometimes almost acceptable to now and then fill in gaps by positing things to make sense of an action, but this disingenuous offering is the worst `history' book I have ever read in that it is 99% conjecture - positing - and 1% truism.
After 400 pages we know exactly nothing more about Shakespeare or his wife, than we did - than anybody did - before. Using highly irritating devices like: `if... we might suppose... it is not inconceivable... I would argue...' etc. ad nauseam, Greer attempts to create a woman whom she can find sympathy with, for no other reason than to defend her against the criticisms of other historians who clearly know no more about their subject than Greer does.
The reader does not care about individuals in the records who have no bearing on the facts about William Shakespeare or Ann Hathaway and are put in as ballast. But anyone