Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.
Loading... 4 Plays: Hamlet; King Lear; Macbeth; Othelloby William Shakespeare
None Loading...
Sign up for LibraryThing to find out whether you'll like this book. No current Talk conversations about this book. no reviews | add a review
Belongs to Publisher Series
In this 1961 study, Kenneth Muir considers Hamlet, Othello, King Lear and Macbeth. No library descriptions found. |
Current DiscussionsNonePopular covers
Google Books — Loading... GenresMelvil Decimal System (DDC)822.33Literature English & Old English literatures English drama Elizabethan 1558-1625 Shakespeare, William 1564–1616LC ClassificationRatingAverage:
Is this you?Become a LibraryThing Author. Penguin Australia2 editions of this book were published by Penguin Australia. Editions: 0451527291, 0140434585 |
OTHELLO: Not very good. The plot is simple and straightforward with no reason to be dragged out over five acts. The characters are melodramatic and without depth. I entertained myself by imagining it performed by the cast of The Honeymooners, which actually fit really well. It's almost exactly like a long episode of The Honeymooners, except Norton is evil, and Ralph kills Alice. 1.5/5. 8/2/08.
KING LEAR: Pretty enjoyable -- much better than Othello, not as good as Hamlet. The biggest fault is the parade-of-corpses ending; sort of a lazy way to make sure it has the requisite body count to qualify as a tragedy. It isn't particularly tragic; except for Cordelia (who isn't a big character) and maybe Gloucester (who I didn't find very sympathetic), everyone who dies has it coming. And there's a lot of humor; I'll be interested to see a film version to see how humorously it's actually played. 3/5. 11/24/08.
MACBETH: A short, fast read. There's not much depth to it; sometimes it seems more like an excuse for stage effects than literature. But it kept me entertained. 3/5. 2/7/09. ( )