Anyone good with Shakespeare?

i hate macbeth

try reading all of the canterbury tales in middle english. now that's a bitch!

i think your best bet might be to agree and say that it doesn't conform to aristotle/classical definitions in which fate is often seen as the creator of tragedy, but rather is a tragedy in the sort of unique 'shakesperian tragedy' genre - talk about how in these kinds of tragedy it's all down to the fatal flaw (ambition/weakness in dealing with wife) and how Shakespeare didn't follow the classical rules of tragedy (eg he doesn't observe the 3 classical unities- unity of time, unity of place, unity of subject) The translation of the classical works of Seneca and the reading of Aristotle's Poetics were major influences on Shakespeare but Shakesperian tragedy disregarded the unities (as in the use of subplots), mixed tragedy and comedy, and emphasized action, spectacle, and--increasingly--sensation. Shakespeare violated the the unities in these ways and also in mixing poetry and prose.

^ I kind of understand. The only problem we havnt been taught any of that so my teachers really going to be wonderin where i learned those terms and probably suspect me of plagurisim( spelling?)

and everytime i look at the play i find it more and more of a tragedy, especially pertaining to the fact that macbeth is a perfect example of a tragic hero, he is a noble man, he is nor completely bad or completely good, he has a fatal flaw which is his binding ambition or shows hamartia( not sure how to properly use that word) when he killed duncan. He in the end is responsible for his own downfall because of this mistake/ flaw.

The plot goes from order-disorder-restoration of order

The play ends tragically for the tragic hero ( he dies)

he also goes through a reversal of fortune

Shakespeare is iffy, but most tragedies end up in or are filled with death. Romeo & Juliet, Hamlet... etc. Macbeth is a tragedy because its a darker story line, its contently filled with him killing people. From what i can remember from reading it a while ago, he is paranoid and killing everyone that seems a threat to him. Obviously its not a love story. As the story furthers itself, Macbeth becomes more paranoid and he loses all his good characteristics. He was once revered as a great warrior and a noble king or whatever. Now nobody trusts him and they all believe he is corrupt.

Another big hint is that it doesnt end in love/marriage. Shakespearean plays ending in marriage/love, such as 'Taming of the Shrew' or 'Midsummer nights dream' are comedies/love stories.

hope this helps.

i concur

not even close to be finished bump

You might have already finishes, but basically my point was that you should say that yes, it is a tragedy, but not in the aristotelian definition - shakespeare basically re-defined tragedy; his tragedies differ in lots of ways from classical (ie ancient greek) ones. I think your question should probably be interpreted to mean "is it a tragedy in the ancient greek way" rather than 'is it a tragedy' because i think everyone basically agrees that it is a tragedy so there aren't many interesting things to be said there

Oh and if I were writing it i'd probably just 1. talk about what classical tragedy was, mentioning Aristotle's definition (it's in his Poetics) 2. talk about Shakespearian tragedy and how it is different and then 3. talk about how Macbeth fits into the form of Shakesperian tragedy (this bit gives you a chance to write about everything you mentioned) and doesn't adhere to the rules of Aristotle and friends.

the definition of a shakespearian tragedy is a hero's downfall brought on by his/her tragic flaw. if you find that tragic flaw, it is incredibly easy to argue that the play is a tragedy. i havent read macbeth in years but a simple tragic flaw would be his (or his wife's) greed and thirst for power, which eventually leads to his downfall. you can also focus on death by comparing macbeth to other shakespearian tragedies

Well i took it upon myself to go on another website( e-notes.com ) and ask that specific question and this is the response i got ( from a english graduate and editor at this said website ) :

Macbeth is a tragedy in accord with the definition of tragedy as it evolved from the time at which Aristotle held sway following the writing Poetics until Elizabethan dramatists, including Shakespeare, revolutionized the concepts of tragedy and tragic hero. For Aristotle, a tragedy was a dramatic work in poetic language that presents (according to the theory of mimetics) a serious and important action that is fraught with fear ans pity and that comes to a logical and satisfactory end that is befitting for the events. Aristotle's definition of tragedy does not include the tragic hero's death. Further, the tragic hero was one who, by some means or other, had failed to achieve moderation in living, and remember, the goal according to Greek philosophers was a measured and reasoned life of moderation. Aristotle's definition holds no indication of the concept of "tragic flaw." 

The Greek word used by Aristotle, which is usually taken to mean tragic flaw, is hamartia, which literally means missing the mark and, according to Dr. Larry A. Brown, applies to a wide span of mishaps from unintentional mistakes with unforeseen consequences to accidents to willful wrongdoing and sins. In Aristotle's use of hamartia, there is no notion of tragic flaw. This idea, the fatal tragic flaw, is part of the newly conceptualized understanding of Elizabethan tragedy and tragic hero that came about during the Renaissance. Further, the idea that the tragic hero must die is strictly an Elizabethan construct; Aristotle's tragic heroes did not need to die. Some were exiled; some did die; some had other fates. One thing that was crucial for the Aristotelian tragic hero was that he must realize his error (or whatever nature it was: ignorance, wrongdoing, accident etc.) and make amends for; he must learn from his tragedy.

What all this means is that Macbeth is not a classically Aristotelian tragedy, nor is the Thane Macbeth a classically Aristotelian tragic hero, not by a long shot. In Macbeth, Thane Macbeth's situation is so bad that he must die; it is doubtful that he learns, although he courageously faces up to final battle even though he has lost his sanity; he has at least one tragic flaw [gullible (who listens to weird sister witches who pop up out of nowhere!?); greedily ambitious; swayed by irrational rhetoric about promises and babies (who ever made any kind of marital promise that included regicide?); courage on the battle field and cowardice before his wife]. Nonetheless, according the tragedy and tragic hero constructs as revised by the Elizabethan dramatists, Macbeth is an Elizabethan classic tragedy with tragic hero.

One other point of difference between these two classic constructs is that for Aristotle the term 'catharsis," which he never defined,  seems according to Dr. Larry A. Brown, to imply a meaningful and logical resolution to the drama so the audience experiences a full release of dramatic tension, whereas, for the Elizabethans, catharsis came to mean an expunging of passionate emotions from the audience's hearts and minds so that they could live calmer, purer lives.

thanks very much everyone! and thanks for this^ it helped me alot