Macbeth by Shakespeare

[Chimera]

I've finally finished Macbeth, so here I am. I'm glad to see it's stirred up so much discussion already

 

Some basic questions to consider:

1. Who was your favourite character and why?

I don't think any of the characters was really 'likable', but if I think of it in terms of "which character would it be most interesting to enact", then it's definitely Lady Macbeth. As others have said, she is such a strong woman, even if repulsive, and the way in which is ready to anything to get what she wants but ends up crumbling, overtaken by the remorse she pretended not to have, seems frighteningly realistic. By contrast I found Macbeth's part too 'artificial' (please don't sue me! ). He goes from being the noble hero to offing anyone in his way, much too fast.

 

 

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

 

I loved the sleepwalking scene, and also the dialogue between Malcolm and Macduff when he explains that he would be a far more cruel ruler than Macbeth.

 

 

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

 

Not my first, as I read many for school (Romeo and Juliet, Twelfth Night, Henry IV, Hamlet...), but this is first time I've read one outside of studies.

 

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

 

I struggled with all of it, unfortunately. I found it very difficult to picture in my head and felt that it was too short. To fully enjoy it I would have needed more details, a slower pace of action... I feel like the scholars which Giulia quoted, that there are parts missing (not as in lost parts of the manuscripts, but parts which I wish would be there). I think that's were my doubts about the character of Macbeth come from. He changed too quickly and I dont feel like I had the time to fully appreciate how and why he was changing: I know he was hesitating in the beginning, but these hesitations mostly disappeared in a few lines time.

 

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

 

I really wanted it to be one, as I thought this was the opportunity to see Shakespeare under a new (non essay induced) light and I normally love plays. But I'm afraid I was just glad when I finally finished 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?

 

I normally feel that plays are as good in the text as on stage but in this case I feel I might enjoy it much more in a production: the actors' interpretation of it and the intonation/ pauses would probably add more flesh to it for me.

 

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. Always do as I think it helps set the scene.

 

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 haven't yet but would really like to do so now and see if it opens my eyes to how great the play really is...

[BigWords]

It has been a few years since I've seen a performance, but the one thing which has always bothered me about Macbeth is the relative speed in which the play unfolds. It feels like there is a scene missing, or at the very least several small bits and pieces which aren't there. Compared to Richard III (which feels epic) I never got the impression that there was as much space given over to all of the moments which build up to the ending - especially because of the way that Macbeth is depicted as either acting insane or actually insane (it isn't as clear cut as some adaptations play it out).

 

The old Penguin edition isn't bad, but the cover isn't entirely to my liking. Project Gutenberg at least had the decency to keep the spelling consistent with the original text (it's meant to contain weirdness - or wyrdness - in the spelling), while the manga did nothing for me.Shakespeare works in the style Classics: Illustrated used, but the cuts made to the text are absolutely barbaric.

 

So of course my big problem with Shakespeare is to understand all scenes and what actually happens in them. Sometimes it

[sirinrob]

 

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?

 

 

The inclusion of the Wyrd sisters in the play has a political meaning. James 1 of England/James IV of Scotland wrote Daemonologie, In Forme of a Dialogie, Diuided into three Bookes. By James Rx. in that James I approved the practice of witch hunting. Shakespeare would have been aware of that, so the inclusion of the witches and showing them as an evil influence would curry favour with James I. The silliness comes in with the Hecat and subsequent scene. From the notes in the Arden Shakespeare those 2 scenes are considered to be an interpolation by an unknown hand. The meter of the verse is mechanical and regular unlike the rest of the play.

[sirinrob]

It has been a few years since I've seen a performance, but the one thing which has always bothered me about Macbeth is the relative speed in which the play unfolds. It feels like there is a scene missing, or at the very least several small bits and pieces which aren't there. Compared to Richard III (which feels epic) I never got the impression that there was as much space given over to all of the moments which build up to the ending - especially because of the way that Macbeth is depicted as either acting insane or actually insane (it isn't as clear cut as some adaptations play it out).

 

 

The point about it seeming to be cut is valid. 1 ii seems to suffer the most. From the notes to the Arden Shakespeare edition I'm reading the version performed at court in 1606 was a cut versionand this seems to be the version that has come down to us, with interpolations (The Hecat and subsequent scene with the Wyrd sisters being the main example)

[Kell]

Strangely, for it being such a short play anyway, Macbeth is still often cut even further! The version we did at college was cut down to an hour long as we were doing two shows in one. The other was the first ever stage performance of The Acid House by Irvine Welsh. It was a "Scottish Showcase".

[pontesusie]

What I find interesting about Shakespeare's tragedies is that the plots still speak to us today. In contrast to women dressing as boys and meeting the love of their life (can't remember which play that is now - Twelfth Night maybe) something like Macbeth with its ideas of the lengths one might go to to acheive power, or Othello and its racial and sexual jealousy, are still accessible. They're human emotions that span the centuries.

 

And I think it's a very 'male' play. A good one for introducing boys and male theatre/Shakespeare phobics generally to the delights of a good play. What I mean by that is that the dynamics of power, the ambition, the doing what ever it takes are often seen as 'male' characteristics. And there are no sloppy love scenes either!

[Janet]

I'm not sure, but seems we have a dialogue developing Why not add to the discussion?

I'm not sure what else I can add to the discussion apart from what I've already said.

 

It seems that I'm the only one here who liked the We

[sirinrob]

The only Wyrd sister scene not written by Shakespeare is the 'Double , double toiland trouble' one, the earlier scenes are by Shakespeare.

[Janet]

Oh, okay. Why is that scene not removed from modern editions the play then?

[Kell]

I'm not sure what else I can add to the discussion apart from what I've already said.

 

It seems that I'm the only one here who liked the We

[sirinrob]

Good question I've checked my copy again and seems I got somewhat confused. The spurious scene involves Hecate and the other 3 witches, the double double toil and trouble is genuine. apolgies for the confusion. why the Hecate is still included seems to be a question of tradition more than anything from what I can make of it.

Edited February 8, 2010 by sirinrob

[sirinrob]

 

And I think it's a very 'male' play. A good one for introducing boys and male theatre/Shakespeare phobics generally to the delights of a good play. What I mean by that is that the dynamics of power, the ambition, the doing what ever it takes are often seen as 'male' characteristics. And there are no sloppy love scenes either!

 

Which raises some interesting points to ponder. Shakespeare portrays Duncan as old and wise and by implication a strong king, but his main source Holinshed portrays Duncan as young and weak. Also Banquo in Shakespeare is on the surface shown as pillar of virtue in contrast to the malignant Macbeth, but even Banquo admits of dark dreams - possible murder of Macbeth? Shakespeare seems to have lifted Banquo from the holinshed, with adaptation, as in the holinshed account Banquo is a collaborator in Duncan's murder. In Macbeth Banquo isn't aware of the murder till after the deed has been done. The change was probably made to please Jame I, since at the time Banquo was considered an ancestor of James I

 

There doesn't appear to be any historical evidence that Banquo existed, so that casts doubt on Holinshed's account. I treat Holinshed, as I do Geoffery of Monmouth, with a dose of healthy scepticism.

Edited February 8, 2010 by sirinrob

[BookJumper]

What I find interesting about Shakespeare's tragedies is that the plots still speak to us today. In contrast to women dressing as boys and meeting the love of their life (can't remember which play that is now - Twelfth Night maybe) something like Macbeth with its ideas of the lengths one might go to to acheive power, or Othello and its racial and sexual jealousy, are still accessible. They're human emotions that span the centuries.

Though I myself do tend to prefer the tragedies overall (and I'm a woman!), may I quickly speak up in favour of the comedies? Alright, the plots might be a bit samey - you're right in thinking Twelfth Night, but there are numerous others where the same crossdressing device is employed - but:

 

Power-lust and jealousy are 'still accessile... human emotions that span the centuries'... and love isn't? Through dressing female characters in male clothes, Shakespeare gave women (silent in his time) a voice - one which has always struck me as surprisingly insightful, considering it was a voice penned by a man for parts which were to be played by young boys. Viola's stoic pangs of unrequited love, Julia (from The Two Gentlemen of Verona)'s noble heartbreak upon discovering her lover's betrayal... these are emotions that are just as real and eternal as Macbeth's hunger for status and Othello's jealousy, IMHO.

Edited February 8, 2010 by BookJumper

[sirinrob]

Giuila has touched on one of my favourite Shakespearian comedies 'Twelfth Night' and I agree with her sentiments

[BigWords]

And I think it's a very 'male' play. A good one for introducing boys and male theatre/Shakespeare phobics generally to the delights of a good play. What I mean by that is that the dynamics of power, the ambition, the doing what ever it takes are often seen as 'male' characteristics. And there are no sloppy love scenes either!

 

Actually, I would counter that by saying Titus Andronicus is the one (dubiously attributed) Shakespeare play which is the most likely to appeal to teenage boys.

[sirinrob]

Picking up on a point made by bigwords re Macbeth, I'm not convinced he is insane, more highly distrustful due to his guilt.

[BigWords]

The level of insanity / paranoia / scheming etc. which in imbued into the character by performers varies. Some productions are very tight readings of the script, while others layer in the crazy aspects of the character with a ridiculous amount of hammy acting. The RSC tend (overall) to be good when it comes to the major plays, but smaller companies can be hit or miss.

[sirinrob]

Rereading 1 v, the letter which Lady Macbeth is reading is interesting, in that there is no mention of Banquo, even though he is privy to the Wyrd sisters prophecies. This could be deliberate or an oversight on Macbeth's part. Also it's not clear if she is reading the whole letter or only part. To my mind this is part of the general ambiguity that seems to run through the first Act.

[Kylie]

Sirinrob, I've been enjoying your insighful comments into Macbeth.

 

I have a general question regarding the way the play is written. The lines of dialogue in my edition (and presumably all editions) are numbered; however, some lines are not, and these particular lines are also indented. Can someone please explain this to me? I can't see a pattern in the way it is done and it has been puzzling me for ages.

[Janet]

Each line is numbered from 1 to 'however many lines are in the scene', but where there is a break in lines where two characters share the rhythm (in this case, iambic pentameter) then that line will have the same number.

 

So in my edition in Act 1, Scene 5 we have for part of a scene:

 

LADY MACBETH

Must be provided for, and you shall put

(65)

This night's great business into my dispatch

Which shall to all our nights and days to come

Give solely sovereign sway and masterdom

MACBETH

We will speak further - (

this line, if it were numbered, would be

(69)

)

LADY MACBETH:

Only, look up clear (

This, if it were numbered, would

also

be

(69)

)

To alter favour ever is to fear.

70

 

Edited February 12, 2010 by Janet

[Kell]

Well done, Janet. I was just coming back with an example to try and explain too - but you did it better than I would have.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Kell

[Janet]

Thanks Kell.

[Kylie]

Oh dear. I'm almost sorry I asked. I've heard of iambic pentameter but didn't know what it meant so I just wiki'd it and I'm none the wiser.

 

My edition has the lines numbered differently to yours, Janet, and the line 'Only, look up clear' is numbered and not indented. I would have thought that it would be the same in all editions? Oh well.

 

I guess I'm missing something in the rhythm then, but that doesn't bother me because I'm enjoying it anyway. I think I'll just continue to read it as I have been.

 

But please don't think me ungrateful, Janet. I very much appreciated your explanation and I have learnt from it (and learnt that I have more learning to do!). And thank you too, Kell, for also going to the trouble of coming up with an example for me.

 

So is all of this common knowledge, or is it something you studied specifically in school? I hope the latter. I know we certainly never studied Shakespeare, or any poetry/text for that matter, in that depth.

[Kell]

Iambic pentameter is in a rythm of 10 beats, with every second beat having emphasus:

 

Da-DAH-da-DAH-da-DAH-da-DAH-da-DAH

 

Obviously, people don't actually speak in such a false rythm and so it becomes a less modulated form of speach in practice. Also, when the line is broken up between more than one speaker, it becomes even more fractured:

 

Speaker1: Da-DAH-da-Dah-da-DAH-da

Speaker 2: DAH-da-DAH

 

I'm not sure if I've even remotely ecplained that in any understandable way - LOL!

[Janet]

Oh dear. I'm almost sorry I asked. I've heard of iambic pentameter but didn't know what it meant so I just wiki'd it and I'm none the wiser.

 

</Snip>

 

But please don't think me ungrateful, Janet. I very much appreciated your explanation and I have learnt from it (and learnt that I have more learning to do!). And thank you too, Kell, for also going to the trouble of coming up with an example for me.

 

So is all of this common knowledge, or is it something you studied specifically in school? I hope the latter. I know we certainly never studied Shakespeare, or any poetry/text for that matter, in that depth.

I don't think you;re being ungrateful - I'm sorry if I seemed a bit know-it-all - I'm really not! I don't know much about meter/rhyme only really iambic pentameter.

 

And only because I have recently studied a few plays at college as a mature student - otherwise I'd have probably been as in the dark as you were.

 

As Kell has said above - it's all about the stresses - an example would be:

 

Shall I comPARE thee TO a SUMmer's DAY

Thou ART more LOVEly AND more TEMperATE

Rough WINDS do SHAKE the DARling BUDS of MAY...

 

...but as she also said, people don't actually speak like that.