<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>Macbeth on George&#39;s Blog</title>
    <link>https://blog.georgefabish.com/tags/macbeth/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Macbeth on George&#39;s Blog</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-US</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 01 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://blog.georgefabish.com/tags/macbeth/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Macbeth</title>
      <link>https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/macbeth/</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:27:03 -0500</pubDate>
      <guid>https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/macbeth/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Read this while on vacation. Luckily this particular edition came with definitions for most arcane words and phrases used. If I had not have had this the book would have been fairly unintelligible.  Overall, even with definitions this book was just &amp;ldquo;pretty good&amp;rdquo;. This might be because it is not written as a book but as a play. So much of the weight of what is happening is only as heavy as your imagination can make it. Living in the TV era I can hardly imagine anything, it left me mostly in the dark. With that being said I was still able to piece together that action and character development of the story. The language and metaphors in the book are truly Shakespearian (pause for chuckles). But really the word play is masterful and renders emotions in high dynamic range. The thing that struck me most about this story was that it had many parallels to the movie Scarface. I was not expecting that connection. Some great quotes in this book to be sure.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
