Since 1997, you’ve been coming to BarnesandNoble.com to discuss everything from Stephen King to writing to Harry Potter. You’ve made our site more than a place to discover your next book: you’ve made it a community. But like all things internet, BN.com is growing and changing. We've said goodbye to our community message boards—but that doesn’t mean we won’t still be a place for adventurous readers to connect and discover.

Now, you can explore the most exciting new titles (and remember the classics) at the Barnes & Noble Book Blog. Check out conversations with authors like Jeff VanderMeer and Gary Shteyngart at the B&N Review, and browse write-ups of the best in literary fiction. Come to our Facebook page to weigh in on what it means to be a book nerd. Browse digital deals on the NOOK blog, tweet about books with us,or self-publish your latest novella with NOOK Press. And for those of you looking for support for your NOOK, the NOOK Support Forums will still be here.

We will continue to provide you with books that make you turn pages well past midnight, discover new worlds, and reunite with old friends. And we hope that you’ll continue to tell us how you’re doing, what you’re reading, and what books mean to you.

Reply
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 3,107
Registered: ‎10-27-2006
0 Kudos

Re: 101 Shakespeare



stratford wrote:
Sorry, Ziki. I was completely remiss in not noting that you are definitely in a LEAGUE of your own.





When it comes to number of postings that sure is true. I do not know what people do to stay under 1000. LOL.
I ought to stop at deux mille and evaporate.

ziki
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: old measurement

I still prefer to see a league as the measurement of a giant's seven league stride. In my mind's eye I can measure it perfectly accurately that way:smileyhappy:




ziki wrote:

stratford wrote:
An obsolete unit of distance of variable length (usually 3 miles)




Thanks. I thought pehaps it was something poetic and I didn't google. Once I did after I've read your answer I found this for those who get high on measurements:

old measurements

Message Edited by ziki on 02-23-200706:33 PM




Frequent Contributor
Posts: 3,107
Registered: ‎10-27-2006
0 Kudos

missing first name



stratford wrote: Possibly he did have a first name in the original manuscript/s that has been lost in the mists of time.




That is what I thought. So far I couldn't find any logic in why he'd be missing a name, all chaps came to play.

ziki
Frequent Contributor
stratford
Posts: 85
Registered: ‎01-27-2007
0 Kudos

Re: why the Bard?



ziki wrote:


There is a park in western Ct (near Washington, Ct) that minus the castle is very much like this valley (in the total impression). Can't say exactly where, I wasn't driving. :-D

ziki



Reminds me of a joke I heard many years ago. It seems these two extremely elderly ladies were driving through a rather busy downtown. The passenger could have sworn that they blew right through a red light, but she wasn't positive so she was going to keep a sharper eye out at the next intersection. Sure enough, at the next intersection, they blow right through another red light. The passenger turns to the driver and says, "Gladys, do you know that you just ran a red light?" And Gladys, says, "SH*T, am I driving?"
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 3,107
Registered: ‎10-27-2006
0 Kudos

Re: 101 Shakespeare- Helena, fairies

[ Edited ]
As we move to Macbeth now I keep my MND questions in this file.

Helena when she chased Demetrius at the beginning seems to me rather codependent. There's no end to the abuse she puts up with. Then in the middle when the tables turn and she gets all that Hermia had before Helena grows suspicious and distrustful and she is not able to enjoy it. All three friends become her 'enemies' in her own eyes (even though they are not) and she expells herself out of their company (to Athens).
Isn't that a pretty typical depiction of our conditioned psyche? Often we will not trust the good things after we were through hell and need love most urgently.

Question about fairies: I thought of them as females but Bottom calls them sir? (end of Act III/sc.1) What am I missing?

ziki

Message Edited by ziki on 03-04-200702:21 PM

Distinguished Wordsmith
Carmenere_lady
Posts: 529
Registered: ‎11-05-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Problem w/Macbeth

Cheryl et al,

Carmenere-Lady sleeps no more! Because I am wrestling with a problem I have with Macbeth that is really bothering me. Some may say, "Well, Shakes. is full of contradictions" or whatever, but I can't get over this.

As M and LM plan the murder of Duncan, they never once (unless I've misread a line) mention the fact that they will also have to kill off Duncan's two sons, Malcolm and Donalbain in order for M to take the crown. M knows that Malcolm was chosen by Duncan to succeed him (I 4 43 We will establish our estate upon our eldest, Malcolm, whom we name hereafter The Prince of Cumberland:smileywink: and M even acknowledges the fact (I 4 55 The Prince of Cumberland! That is a step on which I must fall down, or else o'erleap, for in my way it lies.) So, at this point in the play, LM and M have no idea that M&D are going to high tail it out of Scotland after Duncan's death.

Is this something that we just have to overlook? I can not. Maybe I just read past the resolution to my anxiety - Perhaps you can lead me to the part of the play where this is addressed.

Thanks, Carmen
Lynda

"I think of literature.....as a vast country to the far borders of which I am journeying but will never reach."
The Uncommon Reader


"You've been running around naked in the stacks again, haven't you?"
"Um, maybe."
The Time Traveler's Wife

It is with books as with men; a very small number play a great part.
Voltaire
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Problem w/Macbeth



Carmenere_lady wrote:
I am wrestling with a problem I have with Macbeth that is really bothering me....As M and LM plan the murder of Duncan, they never once (unless I've misread a line) mention the fact that they will also have to kill off Duncan's two sons, Malcolm and Donalbain in order for M to take the crown.

That's a fair point, but I think the answer is that the rule of primogeniture wasn't that strong in Macbeth's life, and the sons were still quite young and unable to hold power (unlike in England a bit later, where Henry VI was acknowledged rightful king even at 9 months old.) But it's also notable that the sons both flee to avoid being killed by Macbeth, so they recognize the same issue. And of course their flight is claimed as evidence of their guilt in killing their father.
_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Frequent Contributor
stratford
Posts: 85
Registered: ‎01-27-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Problem w/Macbeth

I am in agreement with Everyman but have some thoughts of my own to add, which may or may not overlap Everyman's thoughts:

1. Macbeth probably felt himself in a position superior to that of Duncan's sons, either because of age, power, connections, lineage, loyalty, military force availability, etc., etc. etc., that he wasn't worried about Duncan's sons as possible competition.

2. Macbeth may have known the character of Duncan's sons well enough that he wasn't worried about them. Malcolm says, "Why do we hold our tongues,/That most may claim this argument for ours?" In other words, "Why are we keeping our big yaps shut when we are the most concerned with this topic?" Maybe Macbeth strategically guessed that silence would be their response, that this might add to the suspicions of their complicity in the murder, especially since Duncan had just publicly proclaimed Malcolm to succeed him, which would be motivation in the eyes of some, and simply made an educated guess that they might flee the country.

3. You might want to take a look at the "Historical Macbeth" thread that I started if you haven't already. The first five posts are mine and among them make a number of points that may be relevant to your query. I believe somewhere in there it talked about succession alternating between two families. Maybe it was Macbeth's turn. I believe somewhere else it mentioned that Macbeth's claim to the throne may have been even stronger than Duncan's to start with. I believe another place talked about lateral succession being sometimes preferred (Duncan to Macbeth) as opposed to lineal succession (Duncan to Malcolm). And I believe it also mentioned somewhere about the high percentage of Scottish kings who were assassinated in and around this time and at least hinted that one of the possible reasons was the king publicly naming his successor while he, the king, still lived, which caused a number of successors to speed up the process shall we say.

I hope at least some of this helps, Carmen. I want you to be able to sleep once again. stratford



Carmenere_lady wrote:
Cheryl et al,

Carmenere-Lady sleeps no more! Because I am wrestling with a problem I have with Macbeth that is really bothering me. Some may say, "Well, Shakes. is full of contradictions" or whatever, but I can't get over this.

As M and LM plan the murder of Duncan, they never once (unless I've misread a line) mention the fact that they will also have to kill off Duncan's two sons, Malcolm and Donalbain in order for M to take the crown. M knows that Malcolm was chosen by Duncan to succeed him (I 4 43 We will establish our estate upon our eldest, Malcolm, whom we name hereafter The Prince of Cumberland:smileywink: and M even acknowledges the fact (I 4 55 The Prince of Cumberland! That is a step on which I must fall down, or else o'erleap, for in my way it lies.) So, at this point in the play, LM and M have no idea that M&D are going to high tail it out of Scotland after Duncan's death.

Is this something that we just have to overlook? I can not. Maybe I just read past the resolution to my anxiety - Perhaps you can lead me to the part of the play where this is addressed.

Thanks, Carmen


Distinguished Wordsmith
Carmenere_lady
Posts: 529
Registered: ‎11-05-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Problem w/Macbeth

[ Edited ]

Everyman wrote:


That's a fair point, but I think the answer is that the rule of primogeniture wasn't that strong in Macbeth's life, and the sons were still quite young and unable to hold power (unlike in England a bit later, where Henry VI was acknowledged rightful king even at 9 months old.) But it's also notable that the sons both flee to avoid being killed by Macbeth, so they recognize the same issue. And of course their flight is claimed as evidence of their guilt in killing their father.




Thanks for your insights Everyman and Stratford. However, your clearly educated answers still do not address my real problem. Why LM and M never consider killing Duncans sons as well (not doing so does not ensure Macbeth the crown). By reading all the posts and looking into the history of M and Malcolm and M's end, it seems primogeniture prevailed, albeit in a round about way.

As I've tossed and turned night after night I have finally reconciled this issue. It takes us back to the audience. What did they know and when did they know it? Well, I'm assuming that Sh audience knew that Duncan's sons take excile in foreign countries during the reign of Macbeth and simply accept the fact that there's no need for Macbeth to kill them too because they will be out of the picture for awhile. If M had killed them their history would have been completely different. So although Sh's play is inaccurate in some respects in the end it comes out as it is supposed to.

Message Edited by Carmenere_lady on 03-10-200707:33 AM

Lynda

"I think of literature.....as a vast country to the far borders of which I am journeying but will never reach."
The Uncommon Reader


"You've been running around naked in the stacks again, haven't you?"
"Um, maybe."
The Time Traveler's Wife

It is with books as with men; a very small number play a great part.
Voltaire
Frequent Contributor
book-nut
Posts: 131
Registered: ‎11-25-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Problem w/Macbeth

I see your point, but also remember that M and LM were excited by the witches prophecies, and not thinking clearly. Perhaps the murder of the king was only to be the first step in what would have been a more diabolical plot, had the king's sons not fled. Perhaps if his sons had not fled, they would have been murdered next. Macbeth may have expected to take advantage of the confusion caused by the sudden death of the king to seize the throne. And, as I believe someone else pointed out, there have been times throughout history when some have considered it expedient to eliminate the one who really was "true heir", for different reasons and in certain, varied circumstances. (For example, I'm thinking of Richard II, Edward II, ect...)

book-nut.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Problem w/Macbeth : Audience participation.

[ Edited ]
The thought occurs to me CarmenereLady that by not having M&LM speak of the murder of the sons Shakespeare leaves the audience to conjecture what might happen to them - will there be a later act where they will come on to revenge their father, for instance? Or will they flee to France or Ireland (as has often happened with Scottish and English kings) and mount a rebellion from there? By leaving these possibilities in the minds of the audience Shakespeare may have just been adding to the dramatic tension which runs throughout the play. In a modern film script such an open ending might mean that a producer is thinking of a sequel like The Return of Malcolm :smileyhappy: but Shakespeare did not write sequels and so left the thoughts of 'What happened to Malcolm and Donalbain?' in the minds of his audience when they left the theatre. Or maybe during the production the groundlings in the audience shouted out, rather as in pantomime' 'Watch out for Malcolm! Where is Donalbain?' etc. Or, like you, they perhaps had sleepless nights over this problem after they had discussed it in the taverns but it would all add interest and drama to the play and make them want to come back for more.




Carmenere_lady wrote:
Cheryl et al,

Carmenere-Lady sleeps no more! Because I am wrestling with a problem I have with Macbeth that is really bothering me. Some may say, "Well, Shakes. is full of contradictions" or whatever, but I can't get over this.

As M and LM plan the murder of Duncan, they never once (unless I've misread a line) mention the fact that they will also have to kill off Duncan's two sons, Malcolm and Donalbain in order for M to take the crown. M knows that Malcolm was chosen by Duncan to succeed him (I 4 43 We will establish our estate upon our eldest, Malcolm, whom we name hereafter The Prince of Cumberland:smileywink: and M even acknowledges the fact (I 4 55 The Prince of Cumberland! That is a step on which I must fall down, or else o'erleap, for in my way it lies.) So, at this point in the play, LM and M have no idea that M&D are going to high tail it out of Scotland after Duncan's death.

Is this something that we just have to overlook? I can not. Maybe I just read past the resolution to my anxiety - Perhaps you can lead me to the part of the play where this is addressed.

Thanks, Carmen

Message Edited by Choisya on 03-17-200712:20 AM

Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Close Reading Shakespeare

[ Edited ]
I found this essay on Close Reading Shakespeare by John Webster, Director of Writing at the University of Washington, which others may also find interesting.

http://www.ntlf.com/html/lib/carnegie/84webster.htm

Message Edited by Choisya on 03-19-200707:11 PM

Distinguished Wordsmith
Carmenere_lady
Posts: 529
Registered: ‎11-05-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Problem w/Macbeth : Audience participation.



Choisya wrote:
The thought occurs to me CarmenereLady that by not having M&LM speak of the murder of the sons Shakespeare leaves the audience to conjecture what might happen to them







Choisya, I am beginning to believe that it's all about the audience, audience, audience. The people who keep ink in Shakespeare's well and parchment on this desk.
Lynda

"I think of literature.....as a vast country to the far borders of which I am journeying but will never reach."
The Uncommon Reader


"You've been running around naked in the stacks again, haven't you?"
"Um, maybe."
The Time Traveler's Wife

It is with books as with men; a very small number play a great part.
Voltaire
Distinguished Wordsmith
Carmenere_lady
Posts: 529
Registered: ‎11-05-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Close Reading Shakespeare



Choisya wrote:
I found this essay on Close Reading Shakespeare by John Webster, Director of Writing at the University of Washington, which others may also find interesting.

http://www.ntlf.com/html/lib/carnegie/84webster.htm

Message Edited by Choisya on 03-19-200707:11 PM








Oh, to be able to attend college again! I most certainly would have registered for this class. :smileyhappy:
Lynda

"I think of literature.....as a vast country to the far borders of which I am journeying but will never reach."
The Uncommon Reader


"You've been running around naked in the stacks again, haven't you?"
"Um, maybe."
The Time Traveler's Wife

It is with books as with men; a very small number play a great part.
Voltaire
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Play of life.

Folks might like to read this poem by Sir Walter Raleigh, likening our lives to a play:-

What Is Our Life

What is our life? The play of passion.
Our mirth? The music of division:
Our mother`s wombs the tiring - houses be,
Where we are dressed for life`s short comedy.
The earth the stage; Heaven the spectator is,
Who sits and views whosoe`er doth act amiss.
The graves which hide us from the scorching sun
Are like drawn curtains when the play is done.
Thus playing post we to our latest rest,
And then we die in earnest, not in jest.
Scribe
Laurel
Posts: 5,747
Registered: ‎10-29-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Play of life.

Choisya, that is beautiful. Thank you! It amazes me to see how multitalented people can be. (I was thinking of Sir Walter, but you would fit that costume, too.) :smileyvery-happy:



Choisya wrote:
Folks might like to read this poem by Sir Walter Raleigh, likening our lives to a play:-

What Is Our Life

What is our life? The play of passion.
Our mirth? The music of division:
Our mother`s wombs the tiring - houses be,
Where we are dressed for life`s short comedy.
The earth the stage; Heaven the spectator is,
Who sits and views whosoe`er doth act amiss.
The graves which hide us from the scorching sun
Are like drawn curtains when the play is done.
Thus playing post we to our latest rest,
And then we die in earnest, not in jest.


"Truth must of necessity be stranger than fiction, for fiction is the creation of the human mind, and therefore is congenial to it." ~~G.K. Chesterton
Top Kudoed Authors
Users Online
Currently online: 4 members 628 guests
Please welcome our newest community members: