** spoiler alert ** I do not know why Macbeth was chosen to be one of the three William Shakespeare plays on my Masters Exam. (Which panics me, because it seems like something I should know.) Macbeth is, in my opinion, the weakest Shakespearean tragedy I've read. It does not have the startling ambiguities or essential human questions of Hamlet. It does not have the brutal horror of Titus Andronicus. It does not have the political relevance and rhetorical strength of Julius Caesar. It does not have the pathos of an old man shrieking in the wind or a great man reduced to barbarity of King Lear or Othello. It has, in my mind, weak characters that progress through a shockingly simplistic (for Shakespeare) plot.

(BTW: I can't tell you how insecure in my education it makes me feel to apparently not comprehend the brilliance of this highly lauded play.)

I've decided that Macbeth is the opposite of Hamlet. Hamlet thinks and muses and philosophizes and thinks and doesn't act, while Macbeth is all action with very little thought. And few words. (He and Lady Macbeth never even articulate what the "it," "that," or "deed" they plan is.) Since reading a play hinges on the words, this makes Hamlet a much stronger piece of literature for me. (Macbethis about half of Hamlet's length. The half that missing is the half that makes the play intriguing.) Hamlet: "Let me explain to you, the audience, why I'm upset... This makes me question existence, the meaning of life, my place in the world, what is real, my moral purpose..." Macbeth: "I found out I'm destined to be king. I guess I should kill the current monarch! Go go Macbeth dagger!" Now if Macbeth was indeed equipped with superhuman technological accessories, the play would be much more interesting. Since he is not, it lacks the substance--challenging of the moral code, nature of reality, nature of sanity, role of the individual in the familial and political sphere--that I expect from Shakespeare.

And then there's Lady Macbeth. Her complete absence from Act IV destroys her character. She needs some more stage time. I cannot accept the transition from super crazy calling-on-the-darkness-of-hell shrieking "unsex me here!" woman to vulnerable sleepwalking "out, damned spot" lady without seeing more of it. She was the most interesting character in the play and could have been so much more if Shakespeare had spent a little more ink on her psychological deterioration.

There is some good stuff. You've gotta love the classic Greek tragic hero mistake of misinterpreting prophesies. And the psychological, social, and natural deterioration caused by immoral acts. But I can get those from Oedipus Rex. Which pretty much leaves me with just the drunken porter monologue.

Quotes!

"And all our yesterdays have lighted fools / The way to dusty death."

"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."


(After reading this again (again), I upped my score to four stars. The moral and psychological deterioration, ironic juxtapositions, structural genius (except for act four, which is like the pointless weeks leading up to Thanksgiving that aren't Christmas time yet--you know you're so close to the magic but everything is so monotonous), the gender commentary, and the motifs of blood, sight, natural order, and fair/foul are admittedly phenomenal.)