macbeth is shakespears worst book

[Louis Red]

who agrees w/ me:alien: :alien: :alien: :alien: :alien: :alien: :alien:

GOSH this book is so borin :sick:

id rather read hamlet,or romeo,and juliet



:wave: :santasmil :cold:

[jgweed]

It's a lot better if you can find a copy in play form.
Cheers,
John

[Charles Darnay]

don't tell me you're reading the prose version? I saw a copy of that and I almost wept......Shakespeare wrote plays!!!

And Macbeth is a fantastic one!

[kevinthediltz]

Macbeth deals with ambition. A powerful aspect of life that we can all relate to. it also has evil and betrayal worked into it. macbeth was an amazing play.
Ive found that shakespeare can be boring if you read it in prose. Read the play and read it out loud, its better that way.

[Gladys]

The situation of Macduff and his beloved family is intriguing.

[Weisinheimer]

don't tell me you're reading the prose version? I saw a copy of that and I almost wept......Shakespeare wrote plays!!!

And Macbeth is a fantastic one!

Shakespeare in prose?!?!?:eek: I didn't know there was anything besides the play version.

[aeroport]

You'd rather read R & J over Macbeth...?
*does not compute* :(

[Louis Red]

r:flare: omeo & Juliet is a nihilistic masterpiece; a work that :sick: completely disregards the unintelligent society tha:idea: t is based around it. juliet is portrayed as a retarded whore who cannot escape the trivial landscape of he:crash: r idiotically oppressed life. romeo, on the other hand, is the prototypical :) hero of the play who returns to verona in hopes of stealing away with juliet. the romanticism of the play is clear and :yawnb: almost painfully evident; i wouldn't believe it if anyone of reasonable intelligence said that they couldn't correctly identify the existential qualities associated with this.

macbeth, on the other hand, is a miser:bawling: able pile of drivel. it is garbage in a holistic sense. although the underlying plot -- the only thing that the proletarian could focus -- is fairly interesting, slight spots of brilliance are not suffic:sick: ient in creating a valid point for existence of this play. macbeth is easily shakespeare's worst work. i probably shouldn't have expected the general idiocy to correct pinpoint shakespeare's best and most inspired work; people tend to flock towards the most accessible media either way. just look at entertainment of any sort -- people :crash: who are unable to comprehend the intricacies of real cinema watch watered-down trash. similarly, people naturally gravitate toward a writer's easiest-to-comprehend work. macbeth has no real purpose to exist other than the pseudo-glorifying ending, which in turn, was rumored to have been only created to please james vi. this is embarrassing to be honest, and i'm ashamed for sh:sick: akespeare that he would sink so low as to succumb to the idiotic will of a monarch and bend this genius writing into such dumbed-down blocks of text.

HAMLET, on the other hand, also provides a quantitative analysis of the degrading society of the time. this is truly transcendental, in every case of the word's meaning. william shakespeare -- a post-modernist genius, before post-modernism formally came to be. of course, the typical reader of shakespeare would not truly see the greatness of hamlet. this is because the play takes several turns that make idiots lose track; they stick to hamlet instead of seeing the real value in the play. rosencrantz and guildenstern. this is sad, however, as the two characters represent nihilism in the bleak atmosphere of denmark. another shame is brought to the name of the tragedy of hamlet when stoppard released "rosencrantz and guildenstern are dead". that play is a complete monstrosity that should never have even been conceived. although stoppard correctly picks out elements of nihilism in rosencrantz and guildenstern's character, he dumbs the play down for the general entertainment of proles.

none of shakespeare's other works rival the transcending qualities of hamelt or romeo and juliet, if you were wondering. othello is worthless; the tempest is a play that ultimately drives itself into the ground, etc... king lear is the only other play of -possible- note. and this, too, is :crash: debatable as the aura of rebellion in the form of satire against a foolish king is ultimately dumbed-down literature, yet again.

[DapperDrake]

why are there random smilies in your post?

Oh BTW: I think Macbeth is Shakespeare's best work.

[jgweed]

While Macbeth might not rank as high as Hamlet, when read in conjunction with Julius Caesar and Richard III, it is a strong analysis of and commentary on the wrong ways to get political power.
From an existentialist point of view, the trail of choices made by the main characters is thought-provoking, and in Lady Macbeth we see a precursor of Doestoevski's Crime and Punishment.

[JBI]

In terms of literary style, Macbeth is far more developed than Romeo. I do not agree with your reading, and I find parts of your post offensive, not to mention vexatious because of the flashing smilies (does anyone know if there is a way to turn them off?).

Macbeth is not about ambition in the sense that you understand it. Most teachers (I assume you are in high school, otherwise you wouldn't create such a mess) have no clue what they are talking about when teaching Macbeth.

It is about sexual frustration, and its affects. The whole play shows how Macbeth, unable to preform sexually, and have a child with Lady M, tries to satisfy her by making her a queen, and thereby brings about their downfall. It is about their relationship deteriorating, and the destruction of Lady M as she succumbs to guilt. It is certainly one of Shakespeare's most mature works, and most definitely one of his most fantastical.

By the way, about the masses comment, Hamlet and Romeo are the masses plays. Works like Lear, Othello, and Macbeth are less known, and I would argue less taught at a high school level. The reason for this is because the majority of people taking English in high school are philistines there only to get their marks, and are not mature enough to comprehend, let alone appreciate a mature piece of fiction.


By the way, you toss nihilist, existentialist, post-modernist, and whatnot around completely out of context (I would argue to increase the perceived intelligence of a disastrous post). Please look those terms up (and I would argue read Macbeth, and Hamlet, and Romeo and Juliet, and perhaps something beyond a wikipedia summary of philosophy before you comment on Shakespeare, or philosophy). The fact remains though, that if you are looking for Shakespeare's worst work, try Titus Adronicus, or The Two Noble Kinsmen, or Henry VI. Seriously, you don't know what you are talking about.

[Louis Red]

why are there random smilies in your post?

Oh BTW: I think Macbeth is Shakespeare's best work.

u:bawling: h there are random s:lol:milies in my post?

??


While Macbeth might not rank as high as Hamlet, when read in conjunction with Julius Caesar and Richard III, it is a strong analysis of and commentary on the wrong ways to get political power.
From an existentialist point of view, the trail of choices made by the main characters is thought-provoking, and in Lady Macbeth we see a precursor of Doestoevski's Crime and Punishment.

nope; macbeths ucks


In terms of literary style, Macbeth is far more developed than Romeo. I do not agree with your reading, and I find parts of your post offensive, not to mention vexatious because of the flashing smilies (does anyone know if there is a way to turn them off?).

Macbeth is not about ambition in the sense that you understand it. Most teachers (I assume you are in high school, otherwise you wouldn't create such a mess) have no clue what they are talking about when teaching Macbeth.

It is about sexual frustration, and its affects. The whole play shows how Macbeth, unable to preform sexually, and have a child with Lady M, tries to satisfy her by making her a queen, and thereby brings about their downfall. It is about their relationship deteriorating, and the destruction of Lady M as she succumbs to guilt. It is certainly one of Shakespeare's most mature works, and most definitely one of his most fantastical.

By the way, about the masses comment, Hamlet and Romeo are the masses plays. Works like Lear, Othello, and Macbeth are less known, and I would argue less taught at a high school level. The reason for this is because the majority of people taking English in high school are philistines there only to get their marks, and are not mature enough to comprehend, let alone appreciate a mature piece of fiction.


By the way, you toss nihilist, existentialist, post-modernist, and whatnot around completely out of context (I would argue to increase the perceived intelligence of a disastrous post). Please look those terms up (and I would argue read Macbeth, and Hamlet, and Romeo and Juliet, and perhaps something beyond a wikipedia summary of philosophy before you comment on Shakespeare, or philosophy). The fact remains though, that if you are looking for Shakespeare's worst work, try Titus Adronicus, or The Two Noble Kinsmen, or Henry VI. Seriously, you don't know what you are talking about.

nope. you're completely w:wave: rong. macbeth, king lear, othello and other vapid works of literature by w.shakespeare are horrible. hamelt , on the other hand; is sooo good. you have no idea, just trying r:ladysman: eading it again or sumfin:angel: :angel:

[JBI]

I would think you are someone from the forums just playing a prank, but I can't think of anyone who has that much time to waste.

I'll say this flatly, you clearly have no taste for Shakespeare, so please don't comment. Your eccentric use of smilies seems to degrade anything you say.

[Louis Red]

I would think you are someone from the forums just playing a prank, but I can't think of anyone who has that much time to waste.

I'll say this flatly, you clearly have no taste for Shakespeare, so please don't comment. Your eccentric use of smilies seems to degrade anything you say.

HEYYY thisis my thread, dont tell me to stop discussing shakespeare man:flare:

[Louis Red]

you have a weird photegraph or w/e its yous pell it

[JBI]

this is a picture of a portrait of the great French Humanist and pioneer essayist Michel de Montaigne. There's nothing weird about it. And just because you make the thread, doesn't mean you own it. And just because you say something is mediocre, doesn't mean it is. And just because your literacy is questionable, doesn't mean others' are so fortunate.

[Sir Bartholomew]

Help he stole my avatar!

[Louis Red]

oh ok i think this is a picture of a portrait of some retarded monkey or something

[Sir Bartholomew]

blah blah blah yadi yadi yah!

[sofia82]

I don't think Macbeth is the worst work of Shakespeare. If you want to read just for enjoying yourself and not thinking about what you read maybe you're correct, but if you read deeply, it is another matter. Donot evaluate a literary work just by the subject which doe not please you. A literary work has other aspects which makes it a great literary work, and Shakespeare uses these devices with great skill.
About pleasing a Monarch, it is better you read about the history of literature. During Elizabethan period there is patronage which most of the writers make their living by the money they get from what they write devoting to a person, and Shakespeare was not an exception. Although I do not know about what you said about the end to please the king.

[JBI]

The end was to appease the crowds not the king. His only real mature tragedy that does not involve a kathartic ending is Lear, and because of it Lear was not widely regarded as a supreme work until after World War 2. The Aristotelian conception of drama was still heavily grounded in literature. Either way, history says that Macbeth lost, so are you arguing with the source work too?

[jgweed]

To initiate a thread is not to own it, but to encourage the process of discussion about a topic and to secure other perspectives from the community. And if one expresses a point of view, however callow, then one should feel obliged to read the comments that follow and be able to provide warrants for one's argument.

I am surprised that anyone would label Macbeth nihilistic, since the Macbeths are punished for their intrigues and murders, just as Richard is left alone on the battlefield to be surrounded and shot to death by common archers. Certainly one of the tenets of nihilism is a lack of any foundation for morality, and if Shakespeare had been a nihilist, one would imagine that the final scene in Macbeth would have been a jolly banquet celebrating M and LadyM's great victory.

[JBI]

To initiate a thread is not to own it, but to encourage the process of discussion about a topic and to secure other perspectives from the community. And if one expresses a point of view, however callow, then one should feel obliged to read the comments that follow and be able to provide warrants for one's argument.

I am surprised that anyone would label Macbeth nihilistic, since the Macbeths are punished for their intrigues and murders, just as Richard is left alone on the battlefield to be surrounded and shot to death by common archers. Certainly one of the tenets of nihilism is a lack of any foundation for morality, and if Shakespeare had been a nihilist, one would imagine that the final scene in Macbeth would have been a jolly banquet celebrating M and LadyM's great victory.

By the end of the play however, I would argue Macbeth becomes quite nihilistic;

She should have died hereafter;
There would have been time for such a word.
Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
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.

Macbeth, act v, scene v

[sofia82]

I am surprised that anyone would label Macbeth nihilistic, since the Macbeths are punished for their intrigues and murders, just as Richard is left alone on the battlefield to be surrounded and shot to death by common archers. Certainly one of the tenets of nihilism is a lack of any foundation for morality, and if Shakespeare had been a nihilist, one would imagine that the final scene in Macbeth would have been a jolly banquet celebrating M and LadyM's great victory.

It is better Luois defines what is meant by nihilist, maybe according to Luois it is different. I agree if the work had a nihilistic aspect, it should be finished a jolly banquet. OR maybe he will refer to the famous quote by Macbeth

She should have died hereafter;
There would have been a time for such a word,
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
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.
‘Macbeth’ (1606) act 5, sc. 5, l. 16

[sofia82]

As JBI mentioned.

[sofia82]

A character being a nihilist in a book, can not affect the whole work as nihlistic. Although Macbeth is such in the end, the end fo the play and what happend to him is important.

[JBI]

True on some accounts Sofia, though I would argue Othello and Lear are nihilistic works, if such a term can be applied to a play.

[sofia82]

True on some accounts Sofia, though I would argue Othello and Lear are nihilistic works, if such a term can be applied to a play.

I am not sure about this.
It can be a good discussion thread "Othello, King Lear: Shakeseare's nihilistic plays or not?" ;)

[jgweed]

The "nihilism argument" could go either way, depending upon whether Macbeth's famous lines were spoken in character, or represented Shakespeare's view on life. Or perhaps one of his views.....

[Charles Darnay]

True on some accounts Sofia, though I would argue Othello and Lear are nihilistic works, if such a term can be applied to a play.

I think that Othello cannot be considered Nihilism, he is too grounded in his beliefs (that is why, when they are corrupted, he turns to the path he does). Perhaps Iago is a nihilist, but that does not define the play


Harping back on an earlier comment - What's wrong with Titus?

[JBI]

Iago does define the play, he is the central character (according to some readings). And I would argue he is a nihilist. And by the end, I think after killing Desdemona Othello becomes a nihilist of some sort too. The problem with the play is that the ending is unsettling, it not actually ending happily, and instead drifts into a dark depressive emptiness, rather than a kathartic ending. I think in his end years Shakespeare was striving to create that sort of ending, and gets probably closest in Lear, with Cordelia's death, and the gloomy ending on Edgar, who, as the audience knew, was going to follow sooner or later.

[EndoGlastic]

What does this have to do with Macbeth, your in a whole different play. I think that Macbeth is one of Shakespeare's best plays.

[JBI]

Was just answering the previous poster, no need to get all antsy.

[Louis Red]

What does this have to do with Macbeth, your in a whole different play. I think that Macbeth is one of Shakespeare's best plays.

thanks for infusing this thread with your meaningless opinion. we all apprecia:alien: te it

[Trooper]

Macbeth is not about ambition in the sense that you understand it. Most teachers (I assume you are in high school, otherwise you wouldn't create such a mess) have no clue what they are talking about when teaching Macbeth.

It is about sexual frustration, and its affects. The whole play shows how Macbeth, unable to preform sexually, and have a child with Lady M, tries to satisfy her by making her a queen, and thereby brings about their downfall. It is about their relationship deteriorating, and the destruction of Lady M as she succumbs to guilt. It is certainly one of Shakespeare's most mature works, and most definitely one of his most fantastical.




Whoosh...

That one threw me off. I've never heard of this before (granted, this is my first visit to these boards). I can't for the life of me remember anything in the play that suggested this. Do you perhaps have some quotes I can read?

EDIT: Or, if this has been explained elsewhere, can you link me to it?

[Gladys]

can you link me to it? I unsuccessfully sought an explanation here: Macbeth is sexually frustrated? (http://shakespeareforums.com/showthread.php?t=2659)

[Beewulf]

I think Louis Red has a cute monkee, and jist 'cause he's from Arkansauce don't meen he's retard. :D

[scott_C]

In terms of literary style, Macbeth is far more developed than Romeo. I do not agree with your reading, and I find parts of your post offensive, not to mention vexatious because of the flashing smilies (does anyone know if there is a way to turn them off?).

Macbeth is not about ambition in the sense that you understand it. Most teachers (I assume you are in high school, otherwise you wouldn't create such a mess) have no clue what they are talking about when teaching Macbeth.

It is about sexual frustration, and its affects. The whole play shows how Macbeth, unable to preform sexually, and have a child with Lady M, tries to satisfy her by making her a queen, and thereby brings about their downfall. It is about their relationship deteriorating, and the destruction of Lady M as she succumbs to guilt. It is certainly one of Shakespeare's most mature works, and most definitely one of his most fantastical.



Yeah I'm wondering if you have quotes to back this up as well. Not questioning you or anything just wondering if you can direct me somewhere.

[hollylite]

Macbeth deals with ambition. A powerful aspect of life that we can all relate to. it also has evil and betrayal worked into it. macbeth was an amazing play.
Ive found that shakespeare can be boring if you read it in prose. Read the play and read it out loud, its better that way.

I agree with you there. I just finished Macbeth and have a test on it on tuesday.

[xman]

I think Pericles is his worst.

X

[kevinthediltz]

I agree with you there. I just finished Macbeth and have a test on it on tuesday.


Thank you. Man, that was almost a year ago, but thank you.

[hollylite]

No prob. I thought that the play was good, but I didn't like having to write summaries for each act.

[hollylite]

I think Pericles is his worst.

X

Who is Pericles? I don't recognize that name.

[kevinthediltz]

Shakespeare is hard for alot of people to "study" in school. And I know from experience it hard to really get into his plays. So dont feel too bad. ;):lol:

[hollylite]

Okay I won't. I think that it can be very exciting to study. I still think that doing summaries on the acts are dumb though.