Macbeth

Over the past year, I have branched out in my reading, attempting authors and genres that I had not discovered before. Recently, I read Serena by Ron Rash in which the title character is compared to Lady Macbeth. While Serena may be ruthless, I had never read the play so I could not contrast the two heroines. Another of my reading goals this year is increasing my reading of classics. Up until now, I had predominantly read modern classics, and found a worthy reason to read an older masterpiece. So it is without further adieu that I present my take on the Bard's Macbeth.

Shakespeare penned Macbeth around the year 1606 when he was already established as a reputed playwright. For this play, he chose a contemporary Scottish soldier and references the Scottish crown within the text. Yet, as in most of Shakespeare's works, the Bard was not as much concerned with the history surrounding the play, as he was with the characters themselves, their desires and motivations. Thus, Macbeth is regarded as Shakespeare's darkest tragedy.

The tale begins when Macbeth visits three witches, later of "double, double, toil, trouble" fame. They prophesy that he will become the Thane of Crowder, Thane of Glowdis, and King of Scotland. Yet, the men who hold these titles are all currently alive. Lady Macbeth plots and decides to murder all the key players who stand in the way of her husband becoming king, framing other upstanding individuals for her actions. She even goes as far as killing those who relayed news to her that King Duncan had been killed, even though she herself committed the crime. As the tale continues, the Lady now Queen continues to plot and has servants and soldiers at her disposal to do her bidding.

Meanwhile, Macbeth also grows weary of rivals to the crown and plots to eliminate anyone who goes against him. While Lady Macbeth is at ease being an evil mastermind, Macbeth reaches the point where he can not live with himself for murdering Duncan. He returns to the witches in an attempt to change the prophesy, but it is not to be. At this point, Lady Macbeth grows emotionally unstable, while Macbeth himself is no longer afraid to die in battle as penance for previous crimes committed. It is clear that Shakespeare intended for the Lady to be the more hungry individual in this drama.

As in all Shakespearean works, the text is not long but a little tedious if one is unused to old English. Because I had just read Serena, I read along quickly looking for comparisons to the two women, allowing me to be more engrossed in the prose than I might have been otherwise. Shakespeare's words remain timeless over 400 years later, deeming Macbeth, as well as his other works, worthy reads. This play was fun because the characters were so dark, encouraging me to read more Shakespearean tales in the future.

شیطان:

Fair is foul, and foul is fair
زیبا، همه، زشت آمدست و زشت، زیبا
الهی قمشه ای می گوید: این حرف،حرفِ شیطان است و مردم را می فریبد.


و پروردگار:

”فَمَنْ یَعْمَلْ مِثْقَالَ ذَرَّهٍ خَیْرًا یَرَهُ وَمَنْ یَعْمَلْ مِثْقَالَ ذَرَّهٍ شَرًّا یَرَهُ”

«پس هر كس به مقدار ذرّه‏اى كار نيك كرده باشد همان را ببيند.
و هركس هم وزن ذره‏اى كار بد كرده باشد آن را ببيند»

شکسپیر خود در آخر داستان به ما میگوید:
که نتیجه ی کار خوب،خوب است و نتیجه ی کار بد،بد است (اشاره به مکبث و همسرش)


*ترجمه داریوش آشوری فوق العاده س
*سعی کنید علاوه بر کتاب متنی،نمایشنامه صوتش هم گوش بدید (چون موسیقیایی فوق العاده یی در این نمایشنامه به کار برده شده)

Debo admitir que los primeros dos actos me resultaron un poco difíciles, no lograban engancharme del todo.

Pero una vez dentro del tercer acto, la cosa va tomando ritmo y no desciende en ningún momento. La manera en que Shakespeare relata el descenso a la locura de Macbeth me resultó fascinante, y ni hablar de aquel miedo disfrazado de orgullo, opacado por la avaricia, influenciado por el loco amor de Lady Macbeth.

La única razón por la cuál no he podido darle cinco estrellas es por el primer problema que señale arriba. De ahí en fuera, es una excelente lectura.

رائع شكسبير أدبه خلاب وجاذب وساحر
أخبرتنى أختى يوماً من سبعة عشر عاماً مضت - خلال دراستها للأدب الانجليزى - أن أهم مشاهد هذه المسرحية هو مشهد حوار ماكبث مع الخنجرين الذى قتل بهما الملك دنكان
لكن حينما أقرأ المسرحية لا أجد مشهداً أقل من الاخر جميعها مهمة وساحرة وبلغة بليغة

Don't you kind of hate how we've entered the decadent phase of Goodreads wherein perhaps fifty percent (or more) of the reviews written by non-teenagers and non-romancers are now naked and unabashed in their variously effective attempts at being arch, wry, meta, parodic, confessional, and/or snarky?

Don't you kind of pine (secretly, in the marrow of your gut's merry druthers) for the good ol' days of Goodreads (known then as GodFearingGoodlyReading.com) when all reviews were uniformly plainspoken, merely utilitarian, unpretentious, and -- above all else -- dull, dull, dull?

Don't you kind of hate when people say 'don't you think this way or feel that way' in an effort to goad you both psychologically and grammatically into agreeing with them?

In the words of ABBA: I do, I do, I do(, I do, I do).

Well, because the interwebs is a world in which the past stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the present (and with fetish porn), we can revisit the past in its inviolable presentness any time we wish. Or at least until this website finally tanks.

Consider (won't you?) Matt Nieberle's review of Macbeth in its entirety. I have bound it with a heavy rope and dragged it here for your perusal. (Please understand that many a sic are implied in the following reviews.)

its really complicated and stupid!
why cant we be reading like Romeo and Juliet?!?!
at least that book is good!

There you have it. Refreshingly, not a review written in one of the witch's voices or alluding to Hillary and Bill Clinton or discussing the reviewer's first period. Just a primal yell unleashed into the dark wilderness of the cosmos. Yes, Mr. Nieberle is (probably) a teenager, but I admire his ability to strongarm the temptation to be clever or ironic. (Don't you?) He speaks the native language of the idk generation with an economy and a clarity that renders his convictions all the more emphatic.

Here's MICHAEL's review of the same play. You may 'know' MICHAEL; he is the 'Problems Architect' here at Goodreads. (A problematic title itself in that it implies that he designs problems... which might be the case, for all I know.)

This book shouldn't be required reading... reading plays that you don't want to read is awful.

Reading a play kinda sucks to begin with, if it was meant to be read, then it would be a novel, not a play. On top of that the teach had us students read the play aloud (on person for each character for a couple pages). None of us had read the play before. None of us wanted to read it (I made the mistake of taking the 'easy' english class for 6 years). The teacher picked students that looked like they weren't paying attention. All of this compounded to make me pretty much hate reading classics for something like 10 years (granted macbeth alone wasn't the problem).

I also hate iambic pentameter.

Pure activism there. STOP the mandatory reading of plays. It's wrong, morally and academically. Plus it can really fuck up your GPA. There's no wasteful extravagance in this editorial... no fanfare, no fireworks, no linked photos of half-naked, oiled-up, big-bosomed starlets, no invented dialogues between the author and the review-writer. It's simple and memorable. Being required to read plays is wrong, and if you require anyone, under duress, to read a play then you have sinned and are going to hell, if you believe in hell. If not, you're going to the DMV.

I am also tired of all you smug spelling snobs. You damnable fascists with your new-fangled dictionaries and your fancy-schmancy spell check. Sometimes the passionate immediacy of a message overcomes its spelling limitations. Also, in this age when we are taught to respect each other's differences, it seems offensively egocentric and mean-spirited to expect others to kowtow to your petty linguistic rules. Artistic expression will free itself no matter how you try to shackle it.

That's your cue, Aubrey.

In my personal opinion, the play Macbeth was the worste peice ever written by Shakespeare, and this is saying quite a bit considering i also read his Romeo and Juliet. Ontop of it's already unbelievable plot, unrealistic characters and absolutly discusting set of morals, Shakespeare openly portrays Lady Macbeth as the true vilian in the play. Considering she is mearly the voice in the back round and Macbeth himself is truely committing the hideous crimes, including murder and fraud, I do not see why it is so easy to assume that Macbeth would be willing to do good instead of evil if only his wife were more possitive. I believe that this play is uterally unrealistic.

But the following is by far the ne plus ultra of classic book reviewing. While succinct and without any distracting inclination to coyness or cuteness, Jo's review alludes to a bitterness so profound that it is inexpressible. One imagines a few Signet Classic Editions hacked to bits with pruning shears in Jo's vicinity.

I hate this play. So much so that I can't even give you any analogies or similes as to how much I despise it.

An incrementally snarkier type might have said something like... 'I hate this play like a simile I can't come up with.' Not Jo. She speaks a raw, undecorated truth unfit for figurative language.

And there's certainly nothing wrong with that. Once in a great while, when you get neck-deep in dandified pomo hijinks, it's a nice wallow in the hog pen you're itchin' for. Thank you, Jo. I love you and your futile grasping at similes that can't approach the bilious hatred in your heart. You are mine, and I am yours. Figuratively speaking, of course.

And now here's my review:

Macbeth by William Shakespeare is the greatest literary work in the English language, and anyone who disagrees is an asshole and a dumbhead.

Macbeth: I will not yield,
To kiss the ground before young Malcom's feet,
And to be baited with the rabble's curse.Though Birnam wood be come to Dunsinane,
And thou opposed, being of no woman born,
Yet I will try the last. Before my body I throw my warlike shield. Lay on, Macduff,
And Damn'd be him that first cries, 'Hold, enough'

Three weeks ago today I had a stroke, and so to mark the occasion today I saw Macbeth at the Globe theatre in London this rebuilt after the model of Shakespeare's south bank theatre but with fewer bear pits in the vicinity today. This because it is well known that there can be few things more cheering than English people pretending to be Scotch and pretending to murderously kill one another on stage as an approximation of Scottish medieval politics. cruel person that I am I was hoping it might rain and I could watch the groundlings get wet Amuzingly when I bought the ticket online the website warned me that because this was an Elizabethan style theatre there were only hard benches to sit upon, but for a mere twenty schillings I could rent my self a cushion of certain softness to pump my rump down on for the duration. I don't know why one of the witches asked when shall we three meet again when there were plainly four of them on stage, this put loving-kindness drags Mary and Joseph in to his inn declaiming loudly that he has loads of rooms in the inn, the history of amending Shakespeare is a long one, even so it seemed a curious casting decision. The performance had a strong element of pantomime, I was looking out for Birnam wood to appear so I could call out "It's behind you!" In the time honoured style.

Watching I thought of the Earl of Essex and Willem of Orange, as one does, I wondered if that was how a Tudor audience saw the play in 1606, if it played upon their fears that there might not have been a peaceful succession after old Queen Bess died or if men feared a military figure might seize power Macbeth style - if this was not so much a play about very ancient history but a nightmare vision of how the very recent past might have played out, or more a warning that the Scots political tradition was slightly more explosive  then Londoners had been used to. However I left such ideal speculations behind me and sped south in an electric carriage into darkest Kent. Alack said conveyance lacked the amenity of a beer trolley to cheer the heart and revive the tortured souls of my fellow travellers.

On the way out a young woman commented to her friend that she thought Iago was worse than Lady Macbeth, I felt this missed the transgressive element of the story - Lady M denies her womanhood, and both embark on a murder spree on the say so of some dubious characters encountered on yon blasted heath - where is God in this? Plus they conspire to murder their Lord - in the context of early Stuart England this smacks of the Pope declaring Elizabeth deposed, I suppose though since we elect by popular vote our chief ministers rather than believe we owe them loyalty and deference due to the will of God, the Macbeth's keen ambition has lost a little of its shock. Following the suggestions of itinerant career consultants seems a little too acceptable to a contemporary audience. We miss only some psychometric testing to prove to Macbeth that his personality type is, courtesy of Myers and Briggs: KING.

A Scottish Game of Thrones

With real witches and crones

Double, double toil and troubles

A cauldron that bubbles

Black magic, and woes

All Royals are foes

Each eager for absolute power

To be the master, in the tower

The one that sees all

As all the Kingdoms, before him fall

Much blood on his hands, a dagger before him, a nightmare

A story of betrayal, and many battles, and destined to scare

“By the pricking of my thumbs,
Something wicked this way comes.”

I really didn't think this whole “listening to Shakespeare on audiobook” thing through completely. Turns out that Shakespeare is a lot harder to decipher when you can't see the words. Luckily, this wasn't my first read of Macbeth so I had a pretty good idea of what was going on nevertheless (and I might've possibly glanced at the Wikipedia plot summary as a refresher, too).

With that said, if you're going to attempt Macbeth on audiobook, the L.A. Theatre Works recording is most excellent. I mean, first of all, James Marsters (of Buffy the Vampire fame) is Macbeth, which makes it worth listening to no matter what – he uses his “Spike” voice and everything (which is technically just his English accent, but whatever - it's still dreamy). And the rest of the cast is pretty dang good, too. The sound effects are just a wee bit cheesy but also kind of nicely atmospheric? I was properly spooked whenever the Weird Sisters made an appearance.

And, of course, Macbeth is an amazing play, but it has a bazillion ratings on Goodreads so you probably don't need me to tell you that. So, yeah.