Jump to content

Macbeth by Shakespeare


Recommended Posts

February is here, and with it the time to start discussing Macbeth! But first, I must confess that I haven't finished reading it yet. Shameful for the reading circle host, I know, especially with such a short play. :D But reading Shakespeare is proving to be a challenge for me. I knew it would be (from school memories), and I debated whether to vetoe it as 'not for me', but you all showed so much enthusiasm in the nomination thread, that I wouldn't have felt right doing that... and I decided it was the perfect chance to give Shakespeare another chance :D

 

I didn't want to open this thread before finishing the play, as I feel highly unprofessional here :roll:, but it is already slightly late and I know some of you are anxious to start chatting.... so off you go, I'll catch up! I'll open this with some general questions, and hopefully your enthusiastic comments will help me, and any other Shakespeare reticent readers out there, get over the block!

 

 

IT IS ASSUMED YOU HAVE READ THIS BOOK BEFORE READING THIS THREAD, THEREFORE SPOILER TAGS MAY NOT HAVE BEEN USED IN ORDER TO FASCILITATE EASIER AND MORE OPEN DISCUSSION

 

This book is available cheaply from Green Metropolis or through Amazon (please use the link at the top right of this web page)

 

Macbeth by Shakespeare

 

Synopsis (from Amazon): Promised a golden future as ruler of Scotland by three sinister witches, Macbeth murders the king to ensure his ambitions come true. But he soon learns the meaning of terror - killing once, he must kill again and again, and the dead return to haunt him. A story of war, witchcraft and bloodshed, Macbeth also depicts the relationship between husbands and wives, and the risks they are prepared to take to achieve their desires.

 

 

Some basic questions to consider:

1. Who was your favourite character and why?

2. Was there a particular part you enjoyed/disliked more than the rest?

3. Was this the first book you've read in this genre/by this author, has it encouraged you to read more?

4. Were there any parts/ideas you struggled with?

5. Overall, was reading the book an enjoyable experience?

 

Some genre specific questions:

1. The validity of reading plays has been debated several times on this forum: some argue that plays are meant to be experienced, not read. Do you believe that is true of Macbeth?

2. How did you read this play? Did you read all the indications, or only the dialogues? Did you imagine how it might be enacted, which actor could play which character?

3. If you've previously seen Macbeth at the theater, how did reading it compare? Did you notice things you hadn't as a spectator?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As to favourite character, given the subject of the play, that is a difficult choice, but for me it was Macbeth. He knew he was doing wrong and fought it but others made sure he did the dastardly deed and he paid for it.

 

I enjoyed the last scene with the witches - I could easily see them dancing round the cauldron and enjoying themselves ( being it was a Witches Sabbath). The metre of the verse was dancelike and great fun to read :D

 

after the horrors of school Shakespeare, this reading I really enjoyed and I'm looking out other of his plays.

 

There were no parts I struggled with, attentive reading eased the way and I revelled in the use of language.

 

Really enjoyed reading this, on my second read now :roll:

 

I can see the argument for seeing plays to be seen, but I can visualize the scenes in my minds eye and derive much enjoyment from that. Reading a play to me is the same as work of fiction, you interact with the text to create the work.

 

I read all the indicators and the notes and the text. I recognized many expressions that are used today, which was interesting just from a linguistics point of view. I didn't visualize any specific actor for any of the characters, just let my imagination lead the way.

 

Not seen a production of Macbeth, and not likely to. I find the theatre too artificial, for both plays and opera. I'd rather use my imagination, its more interesting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only production of MacBeth I have seen starred Andre Braugher (of Homicide fame) who was excellent. It was performed on a thrust stage, no curtain. Since MacBeth has a high body count the problem is how to dispose of all the dead bodies. This production solved it by having a number of trap doors in which the remaining living characters unceremoniously kicked the dead characters down the drain, so to speak. It was both funny and bizarre, being done so matter-of-factly, and tended to counterpoint the heavy gloom that pervades the play. MacBeth is not my favorite, but it is a very short play, nothing needs to be excised, unlike the very long plays.

 

I find Shakespeare endlessly fascinating, and open to so many different interpretations. Reading him and then seeing the plays, for me, is like night and day. His theatricality, which I find his most compelling facet, in the right production, can lead to some memorable experiences. I go to a lot of theater, but sometimes I feel an overwhelming need to see something, anything, even for the umphteen time, by Shakespeare, just to renew the batteries, and see life portrayed in all its wondrous and mysterious possibilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some basic questions to consider:

1. Who was your favourite character and why?

Lady Macbeth has always been my favourite character in this, my favourite, Shakespearean play. She starts off so strong and manipulative, and then crumbles so completely that she's a fascinating creature.

 

2. Was there a particular part you enjoyed/disliked more than the rest?

One of my favourite scenes is our introduction to Lady Macbeth, when Macbeth returns home and tells her of all that has passed (re the predictions of the wyrd sisters and Duncan planning on visiting). She is so cunning and ambitious - she really is the strength in the relationship. And the whole "unsex me here" speach is fantastic!

 

3. Was this the first book you've read in this genre/by this author, has it encouraged you to read more?

This wasn't the first play I ever read, or even my first one by Shakespeare, but it is one of my all-time favourite plays and my favourite by The Bard, so it certainly didn't put me off!

 

4. Were there any parts/ideas you struggled with?

No.

5. Overall, was reading the book an enjoyable experience?

The first time I read this was during study for English Higher Grade and I fell in love with it right then and there. I've read it several times since and have been lucky enough to be involved in a production of this play whilst at college. I always love this play, whether I'm reading it, watching it, or performing in it.

 

Some genre specific questions:

1. The validity of reading plays has been debated several times on this forum: some argue that plays are meant to be experienced, not read. Do you believe that is true of Macbeth?

While I do agree that plays are meant to be seen rather than read, a good reader has enough imagination that the whole thing is played out in their mind anyway, so they do, in a sense, see the play as they're reading it.

 

2. How did you read this play? Did you read all the indications, or only the dialogues? Did you imagine how it might be enacted, which actor could play which character?

The first time I read it, I read every little bit of it as I was studying it for English Higher. The next time I part of it was in preparation for auditioning for an HND drama course at college (I did Lady Macbeth's sleepwalking scene), so I only really read that part to rehears. After that, we did a production of the play at college, so we went into it all in great detail, focusing on the emotions behind the words and how we could show them in our performances. This time round, I'm read the dialogue and stage directions (I'm still reading it, but as I'm very familiar with it, I felt comfortable coming in just now for discussion).

 

3. If you've previously seen Macbeth at the theater, how did reading it compare? Did you notice things you hadn't as a spectator?

I always prefer watching a play to reading it, although there's a lot to be said for being able to direct the action yourself in your own head. You get the cast of your dreams and they all make perfect performances!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read this version of Macbeth:

 

006-2010-Feb-03-Macbeth.jpg

 

It is slightly basic in some respects in that it’s (obviously) aimed for use in schools, but it contains the ‘original text in Shakespeare’s language’, but with some of the more obscure words explained on the facing pages.

 

Some basic questions to consider:

 

1. Who was your favourite character and why?

I think Lady Macbeth was probably my favourite character. I like the way that Shakespeare (in the plays that I’ve read so far, anyway) writes strong female characters, and I find that quite ironic seeing as women weren’t allowed to act in the plays at the time because it would be 'disgusting' to see a woman act!

 

An honourable mention must go to The We

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do have a DVD version of it that came free with a newspaper (a 1979 version with Sir Ian McKellan and Dame Judi Dench) so I will be watching that to see how somebody else
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some basic questions to consider:

 

1. Who was your favourite character and why?

 

The poor king. For once in Shakespeare, he's all round lovely and completely blameless, yet they still off him - quite sad, really.

2. Was there a particular part you enjoyed/disliked more than the rest?

 

Contrary to the experience of most, I've never 'got' the witches on paper - I have trouble visualising things - so I didn't care for their parts much; instead, I'm a big fan of Macbeth's increasingly rambling (or ar they?) speeches, as they contain some of the best lines in Shakespeare, such as,

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

And then is heard no more: it is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.

 

(Act V, Scene v).

3. Was this the first book you've read in this genre/by this author, has it encouraged you to read more?

 

No, this is by all means not my first encounter with Shakespeare :roll: I have previously read Hamlet, King Lear, Romeo and Juliet, Othello, Antony and Cleopatra, The Merchant of Venice, Twelfth Night and The Tempest (Antony and Cleopatra and The Tempest being the only two that I haven't also seen onstage and/or on tape); several more I have seen onstage and/or tape but have not read yet. To answer the second question - I have a Master's in Shakespearean Studies; does it sound like I need further encouraging :D?

4. Were there any parts/ideas you struggled with?

 

See question 2: with the witches on occasion.

5. Overall, was reading the book an enjoyable experience?

 

This is not my favourite Shakespeare play by any means (King Lear, Anthony and Cleopatra and Twelfth Night are currently duelling to the death for that title); however yes, I did enjoy it as I do most of William's work. The only two I haven't enjoyed really are Othello (which, though brilliant, I find too upsetting to be enjoyable) and The Tempest (which I simply didn't 'get').

 

Some genre specific questions:

 

1. The validity of reading plays has been debated several times on this forum: some argue that plays are meant to be experienced, not read. Do you believe that is true of Macbeth?

 

Probably to a lesser extent than for most of William's work, seeing as - apart from the end battle, which could be quite big and confusing and exciting onstage - the play is really rather straightforward.* To be honest however, if I were to see it I would probably change my mind and become aware of all sorts of page-to-stage complexities that weren't apparent upon first reading the text.

 

* it should be noted that precisely because of its shortness and straightforwardness, both unusual for Shakespeare, many scholars repute Macbeth to be an incomplete play with bits missing. On an intuitive level, this seems to me to make sense.

 

2. How did you read this play? Did you read all the indications, or only the dialogues? Did you imagine how it might be enacted, which actor could play which character?

I read everything, from the copyright page to Kenneth Muir's (The Arden Shakespeare's editor for Macbeth) excellent footnotes. Every little helps, when - see other question 2 - one has no powers of visualisation. I actually have to strain and cause myself a headache to imagine how the scene might be enacted and by whom; it's something I can do if required but need time and pen & paper for.

 

3. If you've previously seen Macbeth at the theater, how did reading it compare? Did you notice things you hadn't as a spectator?

 

Alas, not yet.

Edited by BookJumper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting and gratifying to see a range of views on the play. I freely admit I was torn between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth as my favourite character. Like BJ I'm reading the Arden edition, as its interesting to see the disputes/emendations made. My interest has really concentrated on the linguistic side, so the difference between the last appearance of the Wyrd Sisters (noting the use of Wyrd - doesn't make them witches;) and their earlier scenes rests on metre and language use for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes mine does and Wyrd was the term used for Fate, certainly up to Will's time. The Wyrd was regarded as a weaving together of various threads which determined fate. The Norns in Norse mythology were a personification of this concept. By the time Will wrote this play, such notions were at best disregarded or worst seen as evil, hence the switch to the Witch and the attendant Witchhunts. Bear in mind James I was a keen witch hunter, so Will had to cast the Wyrd sisters as evil, anti church etc and also the line of Kings after Banquo was meant to be James I ( the one with the glass =mirror), as flattery to James I (otherwise Will's plays could not be performed)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks. :lol: I thought my copy hadn't been changed at all ("CSS does not offer you a cut-down or simplified version of the play. This is Shakespeare's language, filled with imaginative possibilities") but I don't think the text can differ much - at least, I hope not.

 

ETA: It also says "this edition uses the text of the play established by A R Braunmuller."

Edited by Janet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"CSS does not offer you a cut-down or simplified version of the play. This is Shakespeare's language, filled with imaginative possibilities". It also says "this edition uses the text of the play established by A R Braunmuller."
To judge the veracity of the text I believe we need BJ on the case. I'm a mere amateur....
Fear not, the Resident Shakespearean is at hand :lol: so:

 

Pretty much all modern editions, including Arden for the most part, modernise spelling though they leave grammar and syntax be as much as possible - spelling wasn't fixed in Shakespeare's time, which means that it was all over the place, with the same word often being written three different ways in the course of a single page etc. The transition from Wyrd to Weird is probably just a case of modernised spelling then, although of course with it one loses the layer of meaning relating to Fate.

 

And re: Wyrd ---> Fate. The Moirae (or Fates or Destinies) of Greek Mythology were the three sisters who wove and cut the threads of life; they were feared by mortals and gods alike, for gods too could die if the Moirae cut their thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expect Giulia won't rate my version as it's aimed at school children, but as I've only ever studied Shakespeare as part of a group before, I thought it would be ideal for me. :lol:

My version is the Oxford School Shakespeare one with Sean Bean on the cover. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re-reading Act 1 last night and found myself at some points referring back to earlier scenes. The main example is the aside in Act 1 sc3 lines 130 - 142. he seems to have a mental conflict relating to the Wyrd sisters prophesies. At this stage he seems to be shrugging off the possibility of murder, but does have ambitions. It could be the birth of guilt as well and overall seems to refer back to his start at the Wyrd sisters prophecies (Act 1 sc 3 51). his next speech admits that chance may make him king without him having to do anything 'If Chance will have me King , why , Chance may crown me , without my stir'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "chance"speach is an excellent one and very telling. Personally, I think if left to his own devices, he would have let destiny take its course, but the influence of his wife pushing him to make things happen changes all that.

 

I always wondered what would have happened if the Wyrd Sisters had never told Macbeth what was in store for him? Would he have become King eventually by sheer chance, or would nothing have happened? Was their telling him the only catalyst for it all kicking off? Or, if Macbeth had kept it all to himself and not told his wife, would it still have happened eventually?

 

Of course, it would have made far a less interesting and dynamic story! :readingtwo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The quote 'I dare do all that may become a man; who dares do more is none' has always been an interesting one for me when thinking about the workings of Macbeth's mind in contrast to Lady Macbeth's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm up to Act 3 and really starting to enjoy it. I'm reading a modern translation alongside it (1 page of modern translation to 1 page of original text) but I find that I don't even really need the modern translation; I'm just reading it because it's there. This really pleases me because I thought I'd have a lot of trouble reading it (I really disliked Macbeth when I had to read it back in high school).

 

I'm even finding that certain phrases are jumping out at me as being familiar, and it's been about 15 years since I last read it. Back then, a friend and I acted out the scene following Duncan's murder and it was a pleasure to re-read that. As I recall, I was Lady Macbeth, but I can't believe I would have chosen the character with the most lines in that scene because I hate public speaking. :friends0:

 

I don't really feel like I can add much to this discussion in terms of analysing the book, because I'm finding that just reading it is enough for me. I would have to re-read it at a later date to be able to start analysing it. But I'm enjoying everyone else's comments. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked the character of Lady MacBeth, the queen manipulator. She kinda made the story happen. I liked it when she convinced her husband of what to do. Mean psychology is interesting.

 

I think, not being native in English, it is hard to read Shakespeare. A lot of old words used which makes it difficult to follow the plot because you need to look up words a lot. But his plays are very good when you sum up the plots and really understand what happens in them. So of course my big problem with Shakespeare is to understand all scenes and what actually happens in them. Sometimes it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I re-read MacBeth last night and was delighted by it's beautiful language,it's chilling depiction of guilt (Lady Macbeth's sleepwalking, in particular), and it's brevity. Also, I was reminded of all the titles taken from the speeches. The Moon Is Down by Steinbeck, a somewhat obscure WWII propaganda novel, I had forgotten that one.

 

The problem I have with the play is the witches, who seem more befitting to a children's story than a great tragedy. In the production I saw, they were humorous but silly. They also bring up the subject of fate. Is MacBeth fulfilling his evil destiny as foretold by the witches, or is he manifesting his character, does he have personal responsibility? The play tilts too far to destiny, in my view, leading to the monumental bloodthirstyness that overwhelms MacBeth. Killing Children! That's difficult for a modern audience to take in. What could MacBeth and his Lady be like before the action of the play, and the witch's prophecy?

 

Theatrically, the best scene was the appearance of the Kings ghost at the dinner table in MacBeth's seat, and MacBeth's horrified reaction. The murderers were also a scary bunch, especially the swiftness with which they dispatch their victims. It may also be interesting to point out Macbeth's reputation as the "cursed" play in production. Actors suffering physical ailments, serious accidents on stage, crumbling scenery, and the like, as if the witches themselves were not amused at the way the Bard portrayed them, and seek revenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...