What do you think?
Rate this book
The Tragedy of Macbeth Part II
Ambition, intrigue, betrayal, murder. In 1610 The Tragedy of Macbeth was first performed . . . now 400 years later, the sequel. Ten years dead, Macbeth may lie in an uneasy grave, but the three witches who led the ill-fated thane to his tragic destiny still hover in Scotland’s eerily medieval “fog and filthy air.” Still, too, their cauldron boils with toil and trouble. Ten years king, Malcolm sits on an uneasy throne. If Malcolm’s mind is haunted by the ghosts of his royal father as well as the thane and lady who so bloodily betrayed him, Malcolm’s soul is sickened, as was Macbeth’s, by the witches’ prophecy that from Banquo’s seed would spring a line of Scottish kings: a prophecy that remained unfulfilled at the end of Shakespeare’s play. The witches also taunt Malcolm with riddles all his own: that sorrows will visit him from Ireland (where his younger brother fled upon their father’s death); that his love for Macbeth will breed fresh treachery. To disastrous effect Malcolm will make these riddles a reality. He will greet his brother and see a usurper. Conspiracy will flourish as loyalties divide. Rebellion will brew. The kingdom will founder. True to the Shakespearean model, its devious plot unfolding in five acts and its speech set to the measure of blank verse, The Tragedy of Macbeth Part II draws bold the tragedy of a powerful man undone by the terrors he imagines and the truths he fails to see.
208 pages, Hardcover
First published October 17, 2008
6 people are currently reading
73 people want to read
About the author
Noah Lukeman
25 books113 followersIn addition to being an active literary agent, Noah Lukeman is also author of the best-selling The First Five Pages: A Writer’s Guide to Staying out of the Rejection Pile (Simon & Schuster, 1999), which was a selection of many of Writer’s Digest 101 Best Websites for Writers and is part of the curriculum in many universities. His The Plot Thickens: 8 Ways to Bring Fiction to Life (St. Martins Press, 2002) was a National Bestseller, a BookSense 76 Selection, a Publishers Weekly Daily pick, a selection of the Writers Digest Book Club, and a selection of many of Writer’s Digest 101 Best Websites for Writers. His A Dash of Style: The Art and Mastery of Punctuation (W.W. Norton, 2006 and Oxford University Press in the UK, 2007) was critically-acclaimed, a selection of the Writers Digest Book Club and the Forbes Book Club, was profiled on NPR, and is now part of the curriculum in over 50 universities and writing programs. His e-book How to Write a Great Query Letter, which he gives away for free as a way of giving back to the writing community, was the #1 Bestselling title on Amazon Shorts for many months. His most recent book geared to help aspiring authors is How to Land (and Keep) a Literary Agent. To help aspiring authors, he has also made available free chapters from all his books, which you can read by clicking here.
Noah has also worked as a collaborator, and is co-author, with Lieutenant General Michael “Rifle” Delong, USMC, Ret., of Inside Centcom (Regnery, 2005), a selection of the Military Book Club. His Op-Eds co-authored with General Delong appeared in the Sunday New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Dallas Morning News. He has contributed articles about the publishing industry and the craft of writing to several magazines, including Poets & Writers, Writers Digest, The Writer, the AWP Chronicle and the Writers Market, and has been anthologized in The Practical Writer (Viking, 2004).
Creatively, Noah is author of The Tragedy of Macbeth, Part II, (Pegasus Books, 2008) an original play written in blank verse, which aspires to pick up where Shakespeare’s Macbeth left off. Macbeth II was critically-acclaimed, and featured as recommended reading in New York Magazine’s 2008 “Fall Preview.” He has also written several screenplays, one of which, Brothers in Arms, was chosen as one of Hollywood’s 100 Best Scripts of the Year on the 2007 Black List and is currently in development at a major studio.
Noah Lukeman has been a guest speaker on the subjects of writing and publishing at numerous forums, including Harvard University, The Hotchkiss School, The Juilliard School, the Wallace Stegner writing program at Stanford University, the Writers Digest Panel at Book Expo America, the MFA at Northern Michigan University, the National Society of Newspaper Columnist’s annual Boston conference, and Riker’s Island Penitentiary. He earned his B.A. with High Honors in English and Creative Writing from Brandeis University, cum laude.
Noah has also worked as a collaborator, and is co-author, with Lieutenant General Michael “Rifle” Delong, USMC, Ret., of Inside Centcom (Regnery, 2005), a selection of the Military Book Club. His Op-Eds co-authored with General Delong appeared in the Sunday New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Dallas Morning News. He has contributed articles about the publishing industry and the craft of writing to several magazines, including Poets & Writers, Writers Digest, The Writer, the AWP Chronicle and the Writers Market, and has been anthologized in The Practical Writer (Viking, 2004).
Creatively, Noah is author of The Tragedy of Macbeth, Part II, (Pegasus Books, 2008) an original play written in blank verse, which aspires to pick up where Shakespeare’s Macbeth left off. Macbeth II was critically-acclaimed, and featured as recommended reading in New York Magazine’s 2008 “Fall Preview.” He has also written several screenplays, one of which, Brothers in Arms, was chosen as one of Hollywood’s 100 Best Scripts of the Year on the 2007 Black List and is currently in development at a major studio.
Noah Lukeman has been a guest speaker on the subjects of writing and publishing at numerous forums, including Harvard University, The Hotchkiss School, The Juilliard School, the Wallace Stegner writing program at Stanford University, the Writers Digest Panel at Book Expo America, the MFA at Northern Michigan University, the National Society of Newspaper Columnist’s annual Boston conference, and Riker’s Island Penitentiary. He earned his B.A. with High Honors in English and Creative Writing from Brandeis University, cum laude.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
September 24, 2010
Fortunately I took this out of the library, so at least I didn't spend money on it. Writing a sequel to Shakespeare? A lofty goal, to be sure, but it's been done before, sometimes with panache and skill. Not here. The entire premise of the book is predicated on ignorance of the implications of the prophecy of Banquo's seed. The characters' behavior is absurd, the plot and most of the dialogue not only are shamelessly lifted directly from the original but pilfers Hamlet, Lear, and Othello, among others, and there is no emotional or psychological depth to anything in this play. It reads less like a continuation of the story of the characters as it does someone making a lot of cutesy referential jokes to the devices and quotes in the original play. Writing this as an exercise is one thing, but there's no reason whatsoever to publish it - had the author actually made an attempt to write in Shakespeare's linguistic style, at least that would have been a respectable goal, to see if it could be done. But to take the surviving characters (and daughter of the Macbeths) and throw them back into the same plot is pointless, hackneyed, and unimaginative.
September 23, 2017
Of all the unofficial sequels in the world "Macbeth Part II" is far from the worst. The author makes a solid argument that Shakespeare might have intended to write a sequel to Macbeth by citing various hints in the original play. Unfortunately, while this idea had potential Macbeth Part II falls into the trap of many sequels by repeating the plot of the original. This might be of interest to Shakespeare fans but casual readers probably won't find anything worthwhile here.
April 10, 2013
In my opinion this was a play that really had no need to be written, and it was authored in such a way that I am unsure if it is a significant contribution to Shakespearean fan fiction. Of course, this is a heavily debated and easily entered public domain space, and anyone is able to jump into the fray, but I was not happy with it.
I do not want to boast about my education, or my own authority to write something that attempted to further the work of one of the greatest English language poets and playwrights, but I do have what I like to think is a solid understanding of his work through a great deal of study and have read similar works in scope that I think do a tremendously better job at Shakespearean imitation (Phillips' The Tragedy of Arthur) and playing with the characters in Macbeth (King's Lady Macbeth).
THE SEED OF BANQUO fails in many ways to manifest any sort of reaction in me besides disappointment, as it has several flaws which contribute to some major issues in my opinion. First, there are some major contrasts between what happens in the source material and its sequel, and it makes for some problems in the execution, here. Simply put, some of the artistic liberties taken here would have been impossible if the source material was followed directly. As a matter of fact, I would have rather not read the introduction that was included in the edition I read as it pointed these discrepancies out. Second, the text is just repetition of the source taken out of context in this new incantation – and the characters have changed to such a degree that they are unrecognizable. I would almost have rather them be completely different than the ones I know so they would not act contrary to their character in the source text. Third, the writing undermines the entirety of the work. The best turns of phrase were copied from the original text, and many of those were just put in a different character's mouth our of context. There is not one meaningful soliloquy, and every word is meant to move the plot rather than characterize or contribute to a thematic understanding of the text.
I really did not like this piece. This is my opinion. If this were billed as informally as fan fiction is and I read it on a Shakespearean fan fiction website, I wouldn't feel so badly. I feel I did not get what I paid for by buying it, and it did a disservice to a play and body of work that I care about. I think it can be done successfully – as a matter of fact, Kurosawa's Throne of Blood and Morrissette's Scotland, PA are brilliant interpretations that do move away from the text and take liberties with the story in many ways and are fantastic scripts in their own right, as is The Tragedy of Arthur I mentioned earlier, but I think this one just missed the mark. I think the author may have been a little more successful if the format were a novel rather than the attempt at Shakespearean format and syntax, and followed history or the source material more accurately. He tried, but I didn't like it.
I do not want to boast about my education, or my own authority to write something that attempted to further the work of one of the greatest English language poets and playwrights, but I do have what I like to think is a solid understanding of his work through a great deal of study and have read similar works in scope that I think do a tremendously better job at Shakespearean imitation (Phillips' The Tragedy of Arthur) and playing with the characters in Macbeth (King's Lady Macbeth).
THE SEED OF BANQUO fails in many ways to manifest any sort of reaction in me besides disappointment, as it has several flaws which contribute to some major issues in my opinion. First, there are some major contrasts between what happens in the source material and its sequel, and it makes for some problems in the execution, here. Simply put, some of the artistic liberties taken here would have been impossible if the source material was followed directly. As a matter of fact, I would have rather not read the introduction that was included in the edition I read as it pointed these discrepancies out. Second, the text is just repetition of the source taken out of context in this new incantation – and the characters have changed to such a degree that they are unrecognizable. I would almost have rather them be completely different than the ones I know so they would not act contrary to their character in the source text. Third, the writing undermines the entirety of the work. The best turns of phrase were copied from the original text, and many of those were just put in a different character's mouth our of context. There is not one meaningful soliloquy, and every word is meant to move the plot rather than characterize or contribute to a thematic understanding of the text.
I really did not like this piece. This is my opinion. If this were billed as informally as fan fiction is and I read it on a Shakespearean fan fiction website, I wouldn't feel so badly. I feel I did not get what I paid for by buying it, and it did a disservice to a play and body of work that I care about. I think it can be done successfully – as a matter of fact, Kurosawa's Throne of Blood and Morrissette's Scotland, PA are brilliant interpretations that do move away from the text and take liberties with the story in many ways and are fantastic scripts in their own right, as is The Tragedy of Arthur I mentioned earlier, but I think this one just missed the mark. I think the author may have been a little more successful if the format were a novel rather than the attempt at Shakespearean format and syntax, and followed history or the source material more accurately. He tried, but I didn't like it.
February 2, 2009
I won this book from GoodReads, and it took me a while to get to it, but I am really glad I entered. It seemed like an odd concept to me. A sequel to a Shakespeare play. It seemed like an awfully big task, but it was much better than I expected!
It is written as a play, the way Shakespeare would have written a sequel to Macbeth. Here's the premise. In the witches prophecy, they phrophecy that the throne of Scotland will be ruled by the seed of Banquo, but this is not accomplished within the outline of the play. Lukeman found this and a few other discrepencies in the text that led him to believe that Shakespeare himself might have planned a sequel, and thus took on the task. Although it is Shakespearian in style, it was still a fairly easy read and yes, it it a tradgedy, but it was a good read. I read it in a few hours (about the time it would take to see it as a play).
It is written as a play, the way Shakespeare would have written a sequel to Macbeth. Here's the premise. In the witches prophecy, they phrophecy that the throne of Scotland will be ruled by the seed of Banquo, but this is not accomplished within the outline of the play. Lukeman found this and a few other discrepencies in the text that led him to believe that Shakespeare himself might have planned a sequel, and thus took on the task. Although it is Shakespearian in style, it was still a fairly easy read and yes, it it a tradgedy, but it was a good read. I read it in a few hours (about the time it would take to see it as a play).
December 30, 2008
A surprisingly good play, I admire Lukeman's determination to come as close to the linguistic style of the original while at the same time being a little disappointed with how he basically rips off the structure and plot progression of MACBETH point by point. That said, more good than bad here, by far, and I really liked the character of Lady Malcolm and Fleance (though I would have liked more both of him and his lover, Fiona). I could definitely see this being staged in rep with MACBETH, though the cast size is formidable (and could probably stand to have some characters collapsed). The ending had a wonderful tragic coil quality to it, which granted is a bit cliche considering the source material, but when it works, it works.
December 27, 2011
An interesting, if not always successful, attempt to complete the story left unfinished at the end of The Scottish Play. While I enjoyed seeing a rather well-done play in blank verse, some scenes were wholly unnecessary and others poorly written - and the phrases stolen from The Scottish and other Shakespeare plays were unnecessary winks to an audience who doesn't need them. Still, there were some scenes of real power and tension as well as some lines of sheer beauty. It's an impressive attempt - even if it's not how I'd tell the story.
More (but not much more) about this over at RB: http://wp.me/pGVzJ-jI
More (but not much more) about this over at RB: http://wp.me/pGVzJ-jI
April 14, 2012
It takes a lot of hubris to think that one can write a play, in iambic pentameter, based on one of the greatest plays of all time, written by one of the greatest writers of all time. It is impossible to read this and not make comparisons. Lukeman has some cool ideas about what logically would have happened next in Scotland, but I don't think he developed the play as well as he could have.
It was a quick read. If you like Macbeth, I would say go ahead and read it.
It was a quick read. If you like Macbeth, I would say go ahead and read it.
March 29, 2009
I was skeptical about this play as many "sequels" I have read have often been terrible but this was not. Staying true to the original tone of the play it was a nice completion of the story. Perhaps Lukeman is right and Shakespeare did intend a part two.
March 17, 2014
I thought it didn't get any bloodier than the story of Macbeth, but I was wrong. Interesting idea for sequel, but copied a lot of the original play.
July 25, 2022
The reason I have rated this so low is that this sequel was quite unnecessary. It brings nothing new to the storytelling, characterisation, or themes of the original play.
While listening to the audio play, my everpresent thought was, "what is the purpose of this"? Does the author think William Shakespeare left the audience unsatisfied and so required a ghostwriter to tie up the loose ends of the plot? The presumption was initially amusing but as I listened to more of the story, it became absurd.
The technical adequacy of the author at iambic pentameter added nothing. The lines that sound vaguely profound were borrowed from the original author's works. It was not an enjoyable experience as the author didn't inject anything different or exciting nor explore any one character's story from a novel angle. Fan fiction with no fun.
While listening to the audio play, my everpresent thought was, "what is the purpose of this"? Does the author think William Shakespeare left the audience unsatisfied and so required a ghostwriter to tie up the loose ends of the plot? The presumption was initially amusing but as I listened to more of the story, it became absurd.
The technical adequacy of the author at iambic pentameter added nothing. The lines that sound vaguely profound were borrowed from the original author's works. It was not an enjoyable experience as the author didn't inject anything different or exciting nor explore any one character's story from a novel angle. Fan fiction with no fun.
January 4, 2022
Obviously this is not on the caliber of the original, but overall I think it did well in paying homage to The Scottish Play. It’s like a decent straight-to-DVD movie sequel. Overall, it’s a valiant effort in trying to resolve one of the biggest dangling plot threads from Macbeth while playing with the idea of history repeating itself despite our best efforts to actively keep it from happening.
February 6, 2018
Fantastic
This book was a quick and easy read, with question s answered to the end. Of course, this book is unofficial but it is a wonderful story. I highly recommend this book to any Macbeth fan.
This book was a quick and easy read, with question s answered to the end. Of course, this book is unofficial but it is a wonderful story. I highly recommend this book to any Macbeth fan.
August 14, 2022
For the most part, see my original review below. However, when I reread this play, one thing that struck me is how slavishly Lukeman seems to be about paying "tribute" to Shakespeare. I've identified at least seven points in this play that are parodies or references to Shakespeare plays--frequently somewhat clunky. That's not inherently a problem, but for a play that's stated purpose is to imagine what Shakespeare's sequel to Macbeth would look like, so much heavyhanded referencing seems very un-Shakespearean. It's almost like what you might find in a not spectacular fan fiction.
Another issue I have with this play is that Lukeman says in the intro that he adopted an Elizabethan five act structure, but this play actually moves much quicker than a Renaissance play. Within the first act several of the Witchs' prophecies are already fulfilled, and then the play as a whole moves through several Shakespeare play's worth of plots, betrayals, conflicts, murders, etc. Yes, it has five acts, but because there is so much more focus on action (like a modern movie) than on language and the discussion/consideration of action and it's consequences, the play simply doesn't move like a Renaissance play.
https://youtu.be/ItsID8EPBKQ
Original review: I would probably give this five stars except that I had really high hopes for this play and it wasn't quite as awesome as I was hoped it would be.
That being said, this is a pretty clever adaptation of Shakespeare's Macbeth, and it's fairly impressive that Lukeman wrote an entire modern play (with a couple of small parts excepted) in Elizabethan blank verse. This is one of the things I find most interesting about the play, is that the language definitely shows a tension between Elizabethan language and modern language--although Lukeman's writing is good, it is clear to anyone really familiar with Renaissance drama that early modern English is not the author's primary dialect. And while that does make the play a bit awkward at times as its own work of art, it suggests the tension in the relationship between the two plays.
Of the three major assumptions Lukeman makes, I most like the notion of a Fleance play, since it does bother me that Macbeth ends with Malcolm taking the Scottish throne and Fleance no where in sight (though a Jacobean audience would have been familiar with the legend that Fleance was the Scottish king eight generations before James VI of Scotland/I of England).
I am interested in the idea of Donalbain coming back from Ireland (and the question of why he doesn't return in Shakespeare's play), but I don't think Lukeman does enough with the character. I mean, Donalbain shows up basically just to get murdered. If you're going to create the character, why not do more with him.
The assumption I really have trouble following is that the Macbeths had a child that lived past infancy. Most scholars I've read suggest that the Macbeth baby probably died in infancy (pretty par for the course for medieval babies). I don't know of anyone other than Lukeman who suggests that the Macbeths had a daughter who grew up in a convent on an island. It certainly could have happened, but I don't know of any textual evidence in Shakespeare's Macbeth to support that assertion.
https://youtu.be/ItsID8EPBKQ
Another issue I have with this play is that Lukeman says in the intro that he adopted an Elizabethan five act structure, but this play actually moves much quicker than a Renaissance play. Within the first act several of the Witchs' prophecies are already fulfilled, and then the play as a whole moves through several Shakespeare play's worth of plots, betrayals, conflicts, murders, etc. Yes, it has five acts, but because there is so much more focus on action (like a modern movie) than on language and the discussion/consideration of action and it's consequences, the play simply doesn't move like a Renaissance play.
https://youtu.be/ItsID8EPBKQ
Original review: I would probably give this five stars except that I had really high hopes for this play and it wasn't quite as awesome as I was hoped it would be.
That being said, this is a pretty clever adaptation of Shakespeare's Macbeth, and it's fairly impressive that Lukeman wrote an entire modern play (with a couple of small parts excepted) in Elizabethan blank verse. This is one of the things I find most interesting about the play, is that the language definitely shows a tension between Elizabethan language and modern language--although Lukeman's writing is good, it is clear to anyone really familiar with Renaissance drama that early modern English is not the author's primary dialect. And while that does make the play a bit awkward at times as its own work of art, it suggests the tension in the relationship between the two plays.
Of the three major assumptions Lukeman makes, I most like the notion of a Fleance play, since it does bother me that Macbeth ends with Malcolm taking the Scottish throne and Fleance no where in sight (though a Jacobean audience would have been familiar with the legend that Fleance was the Scottish king eight generations before James VI of Scotland/I of England).
I am interested in the idea of Donalbain coming back from Ireland (and the question of why he doesn't return in Shakespeare's play), but I don't think Lukeman does enough with the character. I mean, Donalbain shows up basically just to get murdered. If you're going to create the character, why not do more with him.
The assumption I really have trouble following is that the Macbeths had a child that lived past infancy. Most scholars I've read suggest that the Macbeth baby probably died in infancy (pretty par for the course for medieval babies). I don't know of anyone other than Lukeman who suggests that the Macbeths had a daughter who grew up in a convent on an island. It certainly could have happened, but I don't know of any textual evidence in Shakespeare's Macbeth to support that assertion.
https://youtu.be/ItsID8EPBKQ
January 18, 2009
I have to admit when I first read what Lukeman was attempting to do with his play I was a little shocked. Someone actually dared to write a sequel to one of Shakespeare’s play and in blank verse no less!? I did not expect much from it and was pleasantly surprised by the work. After the first scene in the first act I was hooked. It is fast paced, exciting and truly I did not know what to expect, well we do have the new prophecy that predicts Malcolm’s downfall and the return of Fleance but there is the mysterious new love of Malcolm and why exactly does Fleance come back? It was easy to become lost in the language and story. Lukeman and Shakespeare’s writing are so similar I had to convince myself that I was indeed reading Lukeman and not Shakespeare. Lukeman follows the structure, the pace and the language of Shakespeare so closely that an opinion of the play can go both ways… one Lukeman is not really jumping out on a limb and creating his own version of Shakespeare or two Lukeman truly has mastered the Shakespearian art and created a play that can stand as a sequel to the great Shakespearian play. I lean towards the latter. I like the fact that he follows the speed and language of Shakespeare. I can see the two played back to back at Shakespeare festivals. It is a worthy creation that is a must read for Shakespeare fans. To make sure I am balanced in my review of Lukeman though I have a few minor issues with the text. The characters of Lady Macbeth and Fleance are underdeveloped. I wanted more time with Fleance and Fiona to see more of their undying love for each other and how the loss of Fiona drove Fleance to avenge her death and his father’s. I also wanted to hear just a little more about Lady Macbeth she was such an interesting character, especially after just an innocent embrace of MacDuff could have awoken within her a passion that lay dormant. If given the chance could the saintly Lady Malcolm actually have become a traitor to the crown? All the same these are personal preferences that in no way detract from the masterpiece Lukeman has created.
April 17, 2009
I thought this was a fun read! I liked that it started where Macbeth ended. I had to think back to my college reading of Macbeth to remember what happened in that play, but once I started reading, the plot came back to me. It was tragic, like Macbeth, but the story wouldn't be like a Shakespeare tragedy if it wasn't. I liked the witches "riddles" in this book, as they kept me thinking about how those prophesies were actually going to take place. It is not as long as a Shakespeare play, which I enjoyed, and I would recommend it for anyone wanting to flash back to their high school or college Shakespeare days.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews