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.
Help he stole my avatar!
oh ok i think this is a picture of a portrait of some retarded monkey or something
blah blah blah yadi yadi yah!
Last edited by Sir Bartholomew; 05-24-2008 at 07:45 PM.
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.
Art is a lie that leads to the truth.
--Picasso
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?
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.
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
By the end of the play however, I would argue Macbeth becomes quite nihilistic;Originally Posted by jgweed
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
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
Art is a lie that leads to the truth.
--Picasso
As JBI mentioned.
Art is a lie that leads to the truth.
--Picasso
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.
Art is a lie that leads to the truth.
--Picasso
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?"
Art is a lie that leads to the truth.
--Picasso
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.....
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
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?
I wrote a poem on a leaf and it blew away...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
