Hey IQfy new here. What do you think about William Shakespeare's Macbath?
I have no sense of poetry.
>here, the problem
But I really like those dark sentences, Polansk's movie is very dark.
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Possibly the greatest disappointment I’ve had in my entire reading life. I can’t express how much I wanted to love this play. Yet it was fatalistic and annoying, very few plot elements had any real build, Macduff was forced into importance long after he should for the role he’s going to play and in such a cloying manner, and the prophecies come true in ham-handed fashion, including one of the most dubious Deus ex Machina climaxes in all of Literature. Call this a Tragedy, but the only tragic element was that more of these characters didn’t die (and sooner). The first time I read it I spent months trying to convince myself it was good, with a gaggle of Shakespeare’s educated fans trying to be beat it into my head. It almost ruined the pastime of reading for me, and every time I’ve picked it back up since hasn’t helped the cause. The dialogue is atrociously unrealistic, but that would be fine if it found its own dynamic; yet even the drunken doorman (who wakes up seconds before speaking) is flowery and verbose. All the devices of poetry transplanted to dialogue can be wonderful, but they aren't wonderful simply because they're there. William Shakespeare exhibits a far superior sense of dialogue in other of his plays that received less fame. Perhaps actors could make this work, but as a piece of printed Literature it is dismal at best. The sole bright spot is Lady MacBeth’s insanity (“out, out damn spot” is rightfully a classic line), but Shakespeare makes no attempt to earn her descent, and it is a lamentably small part of the play. From the spoken sentences to the structure of the plot, everything feels forced by an author rather than earning conceits or accomplishing internal rhythm. Too many things are obviously introduced for the sake of the play’s mechanisms, leaving it cloyingly artificial where it should be deeply emotional. MacBeth would be predictable even if its plot hadn’t become a cliché in English language storytelling.
Pure, intoxicating pleasure to read. Compressed Shakespeare, gets to the good parts nice and quick. The concept and core dynamics are extremely powerful.
>fatalistic
>a tragedy is fatalistic
Brilliant criticism!
>prophecies come true in ham-handed fashion
Yeah, they were pretty random. Still very powerful as symbolism, though, and the concept as separated from the execution is still great.
I agree that it's quite abrupt, and that it doesn't really work as a standard drama. But it's fricking Shakespeare, you're (or you should be) reading for the language and the creativity, not for scrupulous perfection.
I really like the metaphor about wading halfway into a river of blood. That was the most apt way to describe Macbeth's situation, I think. He can go back and he will be remembered for his evil deeds and spend his life making up for them OR he can keep moving forward and hope the blood will be worth it. There's no good answer for him, no way out.
I don't really mind the "randomness" of the prophecies. I'd say it works better, really, since prophecies can't be understood logically in the way a warrior like Macbeth would. Rather, they're vague and strange. What seems impossible is possible, depending on how you look at it. Real occultists would probably agree on that point.
I realized after I posted that I hadn't phrased that clearly. What I mean is that the fulfillment of the prophecies, as the guy I was replying to said, was out of the blue and not particularly well-justified or connected to anything that happened before. But maybe that drives home the point of lack of human control more effectively. Either way, in terms of dramatic structure it's less sophisticated, so I understand the criticism.
Did you actually dig up your middle school essay on Macbeth to post it in this thread? Genuinely based, that would make for a fun thread idea/theme.
What grounds could you possibly have for calling him a "mindless brute"? Absurd. He evinces self-awareness and remorse from the beginning, the whole point is that the force of ambition pushes him on despite everything. And to whatever extent he *is* limited, the "out, out, brief candle" soliloquy is a commonplace sentiment to anyone who has any familiarity with classical literature, it's not rarefied territory, and makes perfect sense coming from someone who's reached ambition's peak and is on the point of falling - it's his epiphany so of course it's a different perspective than he's had up until that point.
déjà que je n’aime pas trop lire des pièces de théâtre, si en plus elles doivent aussi complexes que celle-ci… par contre, il y a de très belles citations, donc je ne mets pas juste une étoile.
>it was fatalistic
Stopped reading there. Cry yourself to sleep.
It's his most accessible history tragedy but also his worst
Firstly, some disclaimers. I don't think anyone should read a play rather than watching it, it's not how it's supposed to be consumed and it's never going to work very well. I only read it because it was assigned for a class. Secondly, I didn't read a version with annotations or "translations" or anything, i just found the text online and read that. Thirdly, this is a review of the text as something to read, not a review of the text as a performance
Despite the archaic language, the plot is quite clear, but with little other than dialogue it's very plain and unengaging. Most of the characters are one-dimensional and there are far too many of them. Obviously this could be rectified by sets, costumes, and actors, but as those are not present in the actual text they cannot be considered in this review.
There are some really weird bits too, like when Ross tells Macduff his family is fine, but then reveals that that was a lie. There doesn't seem to be any reason for it other than to pad out the scene. Or the bit where Macbeth hires two murderers, then later when they meet up a third murderer shows up for some reason. These characters aren't even important enough to have names, and they don't seem to attempt anything that should take more than two of them, so why does this unnecessary extra character show up for one brief scene? It's never explained or mentioned again.
Obviously there's some good dialogue, but without anything to hang it on it just can't stand up on its own. When you could very easily watch it, there's really no reason to choose to read a play, and this is no exception.
> I don't think anyone should read a play rather than watching it, it's not how it's supposed to be consumed and it's never going to work very well.
And yet it does work. And that's what counts. What does it matter if it was written for an Elizabeth crowd? How does that diminish the effect of the writing? So much more evocative to sink into the text than to watch some RSC dweeb doing his annoying declamations.
>read a play
>see everything in my head
Problem?
The main plot of Macbeth is that a man named Macbeth fights bravely in battle, and then is given a new title. Shortly after, he walks into a prophecy which causes him to value becoming king over all else. Through the play he slowly loses his sanity, his grip on reality, and the loyalty of everyone around him.
What I liked about this book was that it was believable. if it were not for the witches, I would be able to believe that his had genuinely happened at some point in history. It was a compelling storyline with no plot holes which led to an immersive experience.
What I did not like about this book was the way it was written. Shakespearean English is hard to understand the true meaning of, so understanding exactly what was happening was challenging. I was also not a fan of being forced to read this rather than choosing to read it so it was harder to get into, but that is not a fault of the book. Another flaw of the book itself was that I wasn't remotely interesting in what was happening. I was reading this book out of anything but choice.
>LADY MACBETH
>A kind good night to all!
>[Exeunt all but MACBETH and LADY MACBETH]
>MACBETH
>It will have blood; they say, blood will have blood:
>Stones have been known to move and trees to speak;
>Augurs and understood relations have
>By magot-pies and choughs and rooks brought forth
>The secret'st man of blood. What is the night?
King Lear is better
Many things mar this play's greatness. For one thing, it feels too short (imagine someone in the 21st century saying this!) and rushed. Also, the title character, a mindless brute, suddenly becomes a profound thinker in the manner of a Greek philosopher. Sophisticated soliloquies don't feel out of place when coming out of Hamlet's mouth: he is, after all, a prince and a highly sensitive individual. But when someone as limited as Macbeth speaks about life's meaninglessness and brevity you just roll your eyes.
The other characters aren't much better. Malcolm, Macduff, and Donalbain are the three unmanliest men in literature. Considering their cowardice and Duncan's stupidity, Macbeth doesn't seem like such a bad choice for the title of king.
Yet I've got to give credit where credit is due. Macbeth is infinitely quotable. Tons of sentences and phrases have become part of our collective consciousness. The quotes by themselves, taken by separate, are superior to the play as a unit. But verbal wittiness alone does not suffice to write a great work of literature.
Is this a neural net trained on nothing but Goodreads posts? Whatever it is, please stop.
When you are reading a play;
It's nice to actually be able to read it.
Not have a teacher explain it to you,
Or see actors attempt to explain their roles.
And most definately not study it
For hours on end.
When you are studying a play;
It's nice to have a break once in a while
Not to listen to the teachers opinions
Or discuss it with other clueless students
And most definately not write essays
For weeks on end.
When you are watching a play;
It's nice to see it played out before you.
Not to watch it retold on the TV,
Or watch students fail to create a Scottish accent.
And most definately not look into other scenes
For no apparent reason.
Studied for year ten, hated since month two:
Macbeth, a play in two halves (or my copy at least).
I enjoy Polanski's movie, especially the scene where MacDuff's son gets a bath.
It is a shitpost, posted by a homosexual, full of AIDS and seething, signifying cope.
T.Macduff