Scan barcode
mezzosherri's review against another edition
4.0
As with the similar audiobook adaptation of Hamlet I enjoyed a few months ago, Hartley and Hewson have paired strong interpretive choices with a narration/performance of EXCEPTIONAL quality (seriously--props to Alan Cumming!) to create an enjoyable, thought-provoking re-imagining of Shakespeare's famous "Scottish play." I enjoyed the authors' willingness to try and complicate Lord and Lady Macbeth's villainy by portraying them as a couple who began in a place of (mostly) good intentions and then made a series of poor choices resulting in the ultimately tragic sequence of actions. However, the sequence of bad decisions and coincidence came off as a little bit TOO coincidence-driven for my preferences. And, as with H&H's Hamlet, there was a closing "surprise reveal" that betrayed H&H trying to have it both ways with their wyrd sisters (they're super-evil! they're just misunderstood! they're proto-feminists! they're cliched sexualized objects!)--much in the same unsatisfying way they tried with Hamlet's insanity during the closing minutes of THAT audiobook.
goodverbsonly's review against another edition
3.0
in my opinion the tragedy of macbeth is that they would have killed duncan no matter what kind of king he was, and so in doing the exact same thing they did with the hamlet book (making the old king just The Worst) you undercut the real tragedy of it. also, idk, lady macbeth being undone by the death of a random child instead instead of directly affected by her role here sort of falls flat for me too.
pattydsf's review against another edition
3.0
“Men at their games again. Thanes and crofters, lords and peasants. Killing and being killed, with spear and knife, ax and sword, arrow and dagger, and cruel, cruel hands. Much of a muchness when they are a bag of slaughtered flesh and bone bleeding out their little lives for the grateful worms in the peat.”
It took me a long time to listen to this audio and almost as long to write my review. I found Hartley and Hewson’s interpretation of MacBeth well done and well read. They couldn’t have picked a better reader than Alan Cumming. He was the reason I picked this book to listen to – several years ago I saw Cumming do all of MacBeth in New York City. The performance was amazing.
Shakespeare’s plays are often mined for other’s stories. Of course, Shakespeare did the same thing. This version of MacBeth, for me, rounded out the tale that Shakespeare told. I like what Hartley and Hewson did with the three witches and other characters.
I recommend this novel to folks to like Shakespeare’s play, to those who need to know more about MacBeth because they find the play hard to read (i.e. teens who have to read the play) and to anyone who likes a good audiobook.
Now I want to go see MacBeth, the play, again so I can see what new things I see there because of this interpretation.
It took me a long time to listen to this audio and almost as long to write my review. I found Hartley and Hewson’s interpretation of MacBeth well done and well read. They couldn’t have picked a better reader than Alan Cumming. He was the reason I picked this book to listen to – several years ago I saw Cumming do all of MacBeth in New York City. The performance was amazing.
Shakespeare’s plays are often mined for other’s stories. Of course, Shakespeare did the same thing. This version of MacBeth, for me, rounded out the tale that Shakespeare told. I like what Hartley and Hewson did with the three witches and other characters.
I recommend this novel to folks to like Shakespeare’s play, to those who need to know more about MacBeth because they find the play hard to read (i.e. teens who have to read the play) and to anyone who likes a good audiobook.
Now I want to go see MacBeth, the play, again so I can see what new things I see there because of this interpretation.
branch_c's review against another edition
3.0
Having last seen or read the play more than twenty years ago, this works for me almost as an original piece of historical fiction - not quite, of course, since it's hard not to be familiar with the basics of such a famous story. But I didn't remember all the details, and this novelization does a fine job with those details (even adding some of its own, such as Lady M's first name) while making the story quite accessible and readable compared to the original. Of course, there's a reason this story is a tragedy, and that makes it fairly unpleasant to read in places - there's no getting around the fact that the plot hinges on some really bad decisions with horrific results. That's what made Shakespeare's version so powerful, and that power is evident here as well. This version may even do a better job in making Macbeth and his wife complex and even sympathetic characters, although I still found it hard to go along with their justifications of their actions. Anyway, even if not the most enjoyable read, it's certainly a well-executed novelization.
jenmeleon's review against another edition
4.0
A quick read and a good retelling/expansion of the play many are so familiar with. I haven't read Macbeth (the play) in years, but as I was reading this book, the story came back to me and I could see where the authors of the novel picked up on some of the themes prevalent in the Shakespearean work but also allowed them to take a new direction. The dynamic between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth and their characterizations were especially interesting. I also liked how they incorporated a few key lines from the play without it throwing off the style of the narrative/dialogue that they had already established. The authors also include some historical notes at the end of the book which are worth the extra ten minutes or so of reading (for those of us who typically don't read afterwords and the like).
bandherbooks's review against another edition
I'd much rather hear Alan Cumming read ACTUAL Macbeth, not this narrative version. So, I think I'll do that.
vintageprincess22's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.0
A great version of the Shakespeare classic
tracey_stewart's review against another edition
5.0
Audible had a sale a little while ago in which ten editors each chose ten books to sell for $4.95. I got the email saying "books from your wishlist are on sale!" but the link didn't take me to any of them, so I ended up clicking through the ten pages to see what was out there. And when I landed on one page that featured Macbeth: A Novel and hailed it as "The Perfect Audiobook", I closed the tab without looking further. If this person thinks that is the perfect audiobook, our tastes are clearly incompatible.
"Inspired by 'The Bard'" + "written exclusively for audio" + "Alan Cumming narrating" – yes, these are the reasons it should have been great. How could it go wrong?
In so many ways. In so, so many ways.
You may have heard the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"? The Scottish play really was not broken. But, boy did A.J. Hartley and David Hewson feel they needed to "fix" it. By "fix", meaning "reword the language that has endured and flourished for over four hundred years and add superfluous information"… There's got to be a better way to morph a play into a novel.
Take the wyrd sisters' first prophecies:
First Witch: All hail, Macbeth! hail to thee, thane of Glamis!
Second Witch: All hail, Macbeth, hail to thee, thane of Cawdor!
Third Witch: All hail, Macbeth, thou shalt be king hereafter!
They say little more than that, and then are gone, leaving upheaval as if they'd hurled a boulder into a still pond. There's nothing more needed. Yet these authors felt the need to put more in. A bunch more. They broke up the rhythm of Shakespeare's words, and padded the hell out of the scene, and … why? Don't get me wrong – it's a fine, fun idea, the novelization of Shakespeare; obviously, I was intrigued – I bought it. I listened to [part of] it. But it feels like all opportunities are completely missed. There's nothing new here.
The same holds true of Duncan's choice to declare an heir. Especially when the actor in the role fills the bill, the scene in the play is powerful. Throwing more and more words at it just dilutes it. The converse is also true – I realized that a couple of passages from the play actually use more words than these authors, and their editing resulted in a dumbing down.
Shakespeare used verse very specifically. To take a passage he related in verse and hammer it down into the prosiest of prose, without in any other way ramping up the drama of the moment, leaves it toothless.
I've read a handful of adaptations of Jane Austen, swiveled POV's and whatnot, and the main problem most of these pose is that the new writer's writing is placed in direct comparison to Jane's, much to the present–day writer's detriment. It takes a certain amount of skill to handle a retelling or expansion while avoiding the comparison. And if comparison to Jane is hazardous, how bad an idea is it to hold your writing up against … William Shakespeare's? I mean … William bloody Shakespeare.
Example time:
HIS: I go, and it is done; the bell invites me.
Hear it not, Duncan; for it is a knell
That summons thee to heaven or to hell.
THEIRS: "Sleep tight, Duncan," he thought, "for this is a knell that summons you to heaven … or to hell."
("Sleep tight"? Really?)
HIS: First Witch: Lesser than Macbeth, and greater.
Second Witch: Not so happy, yet much happier.
Third Witch: Thou shalt get kings, though thou be none:
So all hail, Macbeth and Banquo!
THEIRS: "Tragic in the present yet glorious in the future…You shall beget kings, though never reign yourself"
HIS: …Had he not resembled
My father as he slept, I had done't.
THEIRS: "I could have done the deed. I will if need be."
Shakespeare did a damn fine job getting the points across: for example, that Macbeth adores his wife. These guys seem to think no reader will ever get that without being beaten about the head with it.
So that was the language as compared to the original. If you're going to do a takeoff on Shakespeare, brace yourself for the fact that you will be compared (unfavorably) to Shakespeare. The writing in and of itself is not impressive, even without that contrast.
There's a good and solid reason Shakespeare didn't show Macbeth murdering Duncan. It's not necessary. It has more impact offstage. The same goes for Lady M's followup; the same goes for Malcolm and Donalbain realizing they've been set up; the same goes for … oh, just about every scene added. It's padding. It all serves to emphasize how lean and pared down the play is. The shortest of Shakespeare's plays, it says what it needs to and – no more.
As for the content … They placed a very large order with Captain Obvious, and another with Anachronisms R Us. There may have been four-poster beds in Scotland around the year 1000, but – put it this way: I don't trust the authors, so I automatically doubt anything that seems even slightly off. They mention a "sideshow prop"; according to the etymology website I usually refer to, "sideshow" dates to 1855. Someone tells someone "Don't look so glum": from Middle English gloumen (v.) "become dark" (c.1300).
The authors also received a substantial delivery from the Cliché Closet – "The quiet before the storm" "snatching victory from the jaws of defeat" – and these are not, afaik, sayings Shakespeare came up with. ("Victory" seems to date from the 1800's.) Macbeth: "A man of the people!"
This Duncan is a cross between Shakespeare's vision (who was necessarily saintly, due to James VI) and the historical image – corrupt and selfish and swiving with a veneer of holiness. Oh, look, he just raped a 12-year-old girl. These authors didn't seem to want anyone in the play to be worth the air they breathe. I'm not fond of the idea of not liking Banquo. And I don't like this Banquo. Part of the power of the play is that Banquo, a good and honest man and a dear old friend of Macbeth's, is a sacrifice to the situation. The clarity of it, the straightforwardness of it, is important. And Macduff's wife is a shrew? Wonderful idea. Oh, AND Malcolm and Donalbain are "little liked", and "vicious, striving younger versions of their father". Malcolm is a sadist who tortured Cawdor. So… Maccers is the hero, eh?
The attack on the Vikings right at the beginning, killing them basically in their sleep, sets the stage for Duncan's fate. What's hilarious is that Macbeth is made to say, "I've never murdered a sleeping man before, let alone a king." *tugs on Maccers's sleeve* Uh, yer thaneship? Vikings? Belladonna? Hellloooo?
What is this with "picking apples straight off the tree", as if it was something unusual and only found in exotic places? Apples grew in Scotland. There wasn't just this one miraculous tree around. And what is this with using the little boy Ewen to poison the guards?! That's horrible. The kid is smart – you don't think he's going to put two and two together? And then, when he becomes an accidental victim: "The child was not your fault" – uh, yeah he was. Entirely. "Hey, kid, see this wine? It's the most awesomest wine there ever was! It's wonderful! It's liquid sunshine! It's magical! You can't have any!" Yeah, never saw that coming.
"It was the shriek of a woman, loud and anguished" – way to dilute the impact of the "cries of women" later. Woops, there goes Lady Macbeth, humming a little tune and scrubbing at her hands. Oh please.
Lady M is given a name. So, if Lady Maccers is Skena ("Skena Macbeth" just … no), what's HIS name? Hm? His wife (even in bed) and his best friend, a friend since childhood, call him simply "Macbeth". Hmph.
The mysterious girl has a tattoo of three salmon in woad on her front. She also has small, perfect, white teeth like a child's. Know how I know this? I was told. Three times. In great, repetitive detail. From her POV, from Macbeth's, and from Lady M's. Three times in two and a half hours. Too much.
If it was just itself, it might be fine; it's hard to tell. The writing isn't dreadful, just … error–ridden. And so very not Shakespeare. Don’t get me wrong: despite what it might sound like above, I wouldn't ever expect Shakespearean quality – just good. Or, you know, adequate. There is no added depth provided for any of the characters, no exploration of a setting only sketched in in the play, no new elements which aren't ludicrous, and the writing is mediocre at best. Basically, there's no reason for this book.
I wanted this not only because it's based on the Bard, and I love Macbeth, but also because of Alan Cumming who is awesome. He was a – no, the major selling point for this book, and he was the only reason I made it as far as I did. ("But it's Alan Cumming!") However … Samhain is pronounced "Sam hane" Oh, Alan Cumming. That hurts, man. (For the record, I've always heard that it was correctly "Sowen", though now I find it should perhaps be "Savahn". (I think it depends on where you're at.) No matter – "Sam Hane" is not correct.)
Altogether dreadful. I only wish I'd listened to it in time to return it on Audible.
"Inspired by 'The Bard'" + "written exclusively for audio" + "Alan Cumming narrating" – yes, these are the reasons it should have been great. How could it go wrong?
In so many ways. In so, so many ways.
You may have heard the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"? The Scottish play really was not broken. But, boy did A.J. Hartley and David Hewson feel they needed to "fix" it. By "fix", meaning "reword the language that has endured and flourished for over four hundred years and add superfluous information"… There's got to be a better way to morph a play into a novel.
Take the wyrd sisters' first prophecies:
First Witch: All hail, Macbeth! hail to thee, thane of Glamis!
Second Witch: All hail, Macbeth, hail to thee, thane of Cawdor!
Third Witch: All hail, Macbeth, thou shalt be king hereafter!
They say little more than that, and then are gone, leaving upheaval as if they'd hurled a boulder into a still pond. There's nothing more needed. Yet these authors felt the need to put more in. A bunch more. They broke up the rhythm of Shakespeare's words, and padded the hell out of the scene, and … why? Don't get me wrong – it's a fine, fun idea, the novelization of Shakespeare; obviously, I was intrigued – I bought it. I listened to [part of] it. But it feels like all opportunities are completely missed. There's nothing new here.
The same holds true of Duncan's choice to declare an heir. Especially when the actor in the role fills the bill, the scene in the play is powerful. Throwing more and more words at it just dilutes it. The converse is also true – I realized that a couple of passages from the play actually use more words than these authors, and their editing resulted in a dumbing down.
Shakespeare used verse very specifically. To take a passage he related in verse and hammer it down into the prosiest of prose, without in any other way ramping up the drama of the moment, leaves it toothless.
I've read a handful of adaptations of Jane Austen, swiveled POV's and whatnot, and the main problem most of these pose is that the new writer's writing is placed in direct comparison to Jane's, much to the present–day writer's detriment. It takes a certain amount of skill to handle a retelling or expansion while avoiding the comparison. And if comparison to Jane is hazardous, how bad an idea is it to hold your writing up against … William Shakespeare's? I mean … William bloody Shakespeare.
Example time:
HIS: I go, and it is done; the bell invites me.
Hear it not, Duncan; for it is a knell
That summons thee to heaven or to hell.
THEIRS: "Sleep tight, Duncan," he thought, "for this is a knell that summons you to heaven … or to hell."
("Sleep tight"? Really?)
HIS: First Witch: Lesser than Macbeth, and greater.
Second Witch: Not so happy, yet much happier.
Third Witch: Thou shalt get kings, though thou be none:
So all hail, Macbeth and Banquo!
THEIRS: "Tragic in the present yet glorious in the future…You shall beget kings, though never reign yourself"
HIS: …Had he not resembled
My father as he slept, I had done't.
THEIRS: "I could have done the deed. I will if need be."
Shakespeare did a damn fine job getting the points across: for example, that Macbeth adores his wife. These guys seem to think no reader will ever get that without being beaten about the head with it.
So that was the language as compared to the original. If you're going to do a takeoff on Shakespeare, brace yourself for the fact that you will be compared (unfavorably) to Shakespeare. The writing in and of itself is not impressive, even without that contrast.
There's a good and solid reason Shakespeare didn't show Macbeth murdering Duncan. It's not necessary. It has more impact offstage. The same goes for Lady M's followup; the same goes for Malcolm and Donalbain realizing they've been set up; the same goes for … oh, just about every scene added. It's padding. It all serves to emphasize how lean and pared down the play is. The shortest of Shakespeare's plays, it says what it needs to and – no more.
As for the content … They placed a very large order with Captain Obvious, and another with Anachronisms R Us. There may have been four-poster beds in Scotland around the year 1000, but – put it this way: I don't trust the authors, so I automatically doubt anything that seems even slightly off. They mention a "sideshow prop"; according to the etymology website I usually refer to, "sideshow" dates to 1855. Someone tells someone "Don't look so glum": from Middle English gloumen (v.) "become dark" (c.1300).
The authors also received a substantial delivery from the Cliché Closet – "The quiet before the storm" "snatching victory from the jaws of defeat" – and these are not, afaik, sayings Shakespeare came up with. ("Victory" seems to date from the 1800's.) Macbeth: "A man of the people!"
This Duncan is a cross between Shakespeare's vision (who was necessarily saintly, due to James VI) and the historical image – corrupt and selfish and swiving with a veneer of holiness. Oh, look, he just raped a 12-year-old girl. These authors didn't seem to want anyone in the play to be worth the air they breathe. I'm not fond of the idea of not liking Banquo. And I don't like this Banquo. Part of the power of the play is that Banquo, a good and honest man and a dear old friend of Macbeth's, is a sacrifice to the situation. The clarity of it, the straightforwardness of it, is important. And Macduff's wife is a shrew? Wonderful idea. Oh, AND Malcolm and Donalbain are "little liked", and "vicious, striving younger versions of their father". Malcolm is a sadist who tortured Cawdor. So… Maccers is the hero, eh?
The attack on the Vikings right at the beginning, killing them basically in their sleep, sets the stage for Duncan's fate. What's hilarious is that Macbeth is made to say, "I've never murdered a sleeping man before, let alone a king." *tugs on Maccers's sleeve* Uh, yer thaneship? Vikings? Belladonna? Hellloooo?
What is this with "picking apples straight off the tree", as if it was something unusual and only found in exotic places? Apples grew in Scotland. There wasn't just this one miraculous tree around. And what is this with using the little boy Ewen to poison the guards?! That's horrible. The kid is smart – you don't think he's going to put two and two together? And then, when he becomes an accidental victim: "The child was not your fault" – uh, yeah he was. Entirely. "Hey, kid, see this wine? It's the most awesomest wine there ever was! It's wonderful! It's liquid sunshine! It's magical! You can't have any!" Yeah, never saw that coming.
"It was the shriek of a woman, loud and anguished" – way to dilute the impact of the "cries of women" later. Woops, there goes Lady Macbeth, humming a little tune and scrubbing at her hands. Oh please.
Lady M is given a name. So, if Lady Maccers is Skena ("Skena Macbeth" just … no), what's HIS name? Hm? His wife (even in bed) and his best friend, a friend since childhood, call him simply "Macbeth". Hmph.
The mysterious girl has a tattoo of three salmon in woad on her front. She also has small, perfect, white teeth like a child's. Know how I know this? I was told. Three times. In great, repetitive detail. From her POV, from Macbeth's, and from Lady M's. Three times in two and a half hours. Too much.
If it was just itself, it might be fine; it's hard to tell. The writing isn't dreadful, just … error–ridden. And so very not Shakespeare. Don’t get me wrong: despite what it might sound like above, I wouldn't ever expect Shakespearean quality – just good. Or, you know, adequate. There is no added depth provided for any of the characters, no exploration of a setting only sketched in in the play, no new elements which aren't ludicrous, and the writing is mediocre at best. Basically, there's no reason for this book.
I wanted this not only because it's based on the Bard, and I love Macbeth, but also because of Alan Cumming who is awesome. He was a – no, the major selling point for this book, and he was the only reason I made it as far as I did. ("But it's Alan Cumming!") However … Samhain is pronounced "Sam hane" Oh, Alan Cumming. That hurts, man. (For the record, I've always heard that it was correctly "Sowen", though now I find it should perhaps be "Savahn". (I think it depends on where you're at.) No matter – "Sam Hane" is not correct.)
Altogether dreadful. I only wish I'd listened to it in time to return it on Audible.
terri's review against another edition
challenging
dark
mysterious
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0