macbeth is shakespears worst book

[Louis Red]

who agrees w/ me

GOSH this book is so borin

id rather read hamlet,or romeo,and juliet

[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?!?!? 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 omeo & Juliet is a nihilistic masterpiece; a work that completely disregards the unintelligent society tha t is based around it. juliet is portrayed as a retarded whore who cannot escape the trivial landscape of he 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 h there are random smilies 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 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 eading it again or sumfin

[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

[Louis Red]

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