Este site usa cookies para fornecer nossos serviços, melhorar o desempenho, para análises e (se não estiver conectado) para publicidade. Ao usar o LibraryThing, você reconhece que leu e entendeu nossos Termos de Serviço e Política de Privacidade . Seu uso do site e dos serviços está sujeito a essas políticas e termos.
HAMLET: It's been probably more than five years since the last time I read any Shakespeare, and I was surprised to find that I actually enjoyed it (rather than just "appreciated" it). I'm impatient, so 400-year-old verse, no matter how good the writer is, just isn't going to be my thing - but the story is just damn good. The ending was a little disappointing, though (but there's a lot of action, so it's probably a lot better when you're watching instead of reading). 3/5. 6/17/08.
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. ( )
Informação do Conhecimento Comum em inglês.Edite para a localizar na sua língua.
This page is intended for single volumes that contain exactly these four tragedies: Hamlet, Othello, King Lear and Macbeth. Alternative titles, editions, editors, introductions, etc. are welcome as long as the plays themselves are the same. For example, the Signet Classics and the Penguin Classics belong here.
Please do not combine with single volumes which contain different plays. For example, the 2005 Dover Thrift edition titled Four Great Tragedies should not be combined because it contains only three of the four plays; King Lear is replaced by Romeo and Juliet.
Editores da Publicação
Autores Resenhistas (normalmente na contracapa do livro)
Google Books — Carregando...
(4.4)
15
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. (