lol wat? I didn't even know Steinbeck added a bunch of metaphors like that. We just learned about the history of the great depression, and examined the major themes of the book. I had no idea people had to do deconstructions like it was a Shakespeare play or something lmao
This is a nuclear take (also pretty bad). I seriously have trouble understanding why it is such a big deal that there was a "man eating horse subplot" in Macbeth which you think wasn't going anywhere. In fact, about that, I don't even know what you are talking about, the closest thing I know is literally one off handed version that brings up Duncan's horses going wild and eating each other. That is not a "subplot", that is just dark imagery to set an atmosphere that also serves as a metaphor. I have no clue what "man eating horse subplot" you are talking about, I don't remember such a thing in Macbeth. What a weird take.
...but that wasn't Macbeth's point at all? Like, it was pretty obviously not about how curses are bad or whatever. It's a pretty simple case of "if you're a scheming arrogant douche you will get domed by fate, guilt and madness eventually".
It's so incredibly weird to argue that 400 centuries have passed and he is still appreciated solely because some king back then liked him. If that was the case he'd have faded away long ago, just like everyone else who became highly regarded solely for similar reasons.
It was a story about witches who convinced a trusted figure to murder the king, written for a king who was famously paranoid about that exact situation and was VERY big on witch hunts.
Yeah, but is this what you think the story is about? Beyond that, it was the 16th century, people believed in witches, and they used it as a theme in plays. I guess he's cancelled now?
He seems to be only famous because he’s taught in school from what I’ve seen
He's only taught in schools in some English speaking countries. Ayn Rand is taught in many schools in the US but no one gives even a little bit of a shit about her outside the US. People don't even know who she is, even people deep into literature.
I am looking at this list: https://www.listchallenges.com/top-20-most-taught-books-in-high-school
At least a third (probably more tbh) of those most people outside the anglosphere don't really care about and probably don't even know them. Unlike Shakespeare.
So I guess you figured out the horses aren't "irrelevant" or "going nowhere" after all, eh?
Yeah he "only" wrote about witches when the guy who thought they were plotting against him (which BTW wasn't "crazy" in 1600) was in power. Which is, like, half of Shakespeare's career.
Yeah that's also a theme. I guess it's the only theme because you said so.
It really feels like you are trying to find weird reasons to declare him a hack to justify not liking reading about him in school lol
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
lol wat? I didn't even know Steinbeck added a bunch of metaphors like that. We just learned about the history of the great depression, and examined the major themes of the book. I had no idea people had to do deconstructions like it was a Shakespeare play or something lmao
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Yo wtf
deleted by creator
This is a nuclear take (also pretty bad). I seriously have trouble understanding why it is such a big deal that there was a "man eating horse subplot" in Macbeth which you think wasn't going anywhere. In fact, about that, I don't even know what you are talking about, the closest thing I know is literally one off handed version that brings up Duncan's horses going wild and eating each other. That is not a "subplot", that is just dark imagery to set an atmosphere that also serves as a metaphor. I have no clue what "man eating horse subplot" you are talking about, I don't remember such a thing in Macbeth. What a weird take.
deleted by creator
...but that wasn't Macbeth's point at all? Like, it was pretty obviously not about how curses are bad or whatever. It's a pretty simple case of "if you're a scheming arrogant douche you will get domed by fate, guilt and madness eventually".
It's so incredibly weird to argue that 400 centuries have passed and he is still appreciated solely because some king back then liked him. If that was the case he'd have faded away long ago, just like everyone else who became highly regarded solely for similar reasons.
deleted by creator
Yeah, but is this what you think the story is about? Beyond that, it was the 16th century, people believed in witches, and they used it as a theme in plays. I guess he's cancelled now?
He's only taught in schools in some English speaking countries. Ayn Rand is taught in many schools in the US but no one gives even a little bit of a shit about her outside the US. People don't even know who she is, even people deep into literature.
I am looking at this list: https://www.listchallenges.com/top-20-most-taught-books-in-high-school At least a third (probably more tbh) of those most people outside the anglosphere don't really care about and probably don't even know them. Unlike Shakespeare.
deleted by creator
So I guess you figured out the horses aren't "irrelevant" or "going nowhere" after all, eh?
Yeah he "only" wrote about witches when the guy who thought they were plotting against him (which BTW wasn't "crazy" in 1600) was in power. Which is, like, half of Shakespeare's career.
Yeah that's also a theme. I guess it's the only theme because you said so.
It really feels like you are trying to find weird reasons to declare him a hack to justify not liking reading about him in school lol
deleted by creator
deleted by creator