A brave, if not entirely successful adaptation. 3/5 stars.
Thank you to Random House UK and Netgalley for giving me an e-copy of this book.
The blurb: He’s the best cop they’ve got.
When a drug bust turns into a bloodbath it’s up to Inspector Macbeth and his team to clean up the mess.
He’s also an ex-drug addict with a troubled past.
He’s rewarded for his success. Power. Money. Respect. They’re all within reach.
But a man like him won’t get to the top.
Plagued by hallucinations and paranoia, Macbeth starts to unravel. He’s convinced he won’t get what is rightfully his.
Unless he kills for it.
My take:
Last year I read Margaret Atwood’s Hag-Seed, a reimagining of The Tempest. This was my introduction to the Hogarth Shakespeare project for which several well-known authors have been invited to write adaptations of some of Shakespeare’s stories. When I saw Nesbø had written a version of Macbeth I thought it was a brilliant choice. He’s enjoyed great success writing dark stories and only an author good at wrangling darkness could successfully take on the Scottish play.
Like The Tempest, I also studied Macbeth at school, so I went into Nesbø’s adaption with fore-knowledge of what was going to happen. I’ll come back to whether this was a good thing or not later in my review.
There is a lot in Nesbø’s reimagining which is ingenious. How the characters and events of Shakepeare’s play are transposed into a 1970s’ police noir is clever and well thought-out. I was particularly impressed with how the author managed to incorporate the supernatural elements of the play into a realistic genre.
However, while I thought the novel was good, it wasn’t great. Firstly, one of the best things about Shakepeare’s Macbeth is its terrific economy. It’s one of his shortest plays, something which keeps the action rocketing along and holds audience interest. In contrast, Nesbø’s Macbeth comes in at just over 500 pages and several times I felt events were dragging along unnecessarily. But this may have a silver lining: the length of Nesbø’s story is the main reason I think readers who have no prior knowledge of the events of Shakespeare’s Macbeth may actual enjoy this retelling more because they won’t be waiting for certain events to occur; they won’t be wondering when on earth we’re going to get to the next big moment because they won’t see them coming.
Also, while Nesbø trying to pay homage to some of the original Shakespearean dialogue was a nice touch, I’m not convinced it worked when the characters were otherwise speaking naturally in modern-day English. In fact, the dialogue felt a little clunky in places.
Macbeth is a tragedy and, in performance, works or not depending on whether the actor playing Macbeth can make us feel sympathy for him before he starts committing foul deeds. We have to believe he was a basically good man who had potential to be a great one, but that circumstances and weakness led him down the path to evil. I didn’t get this sense with Nesbø’s Macbeth. In fact, I didn’t feel much sympathy for any of the characters and so wasn’t too bothered when things started to turn towards the tragic.
Finally, Shakespeare could write black and grim, but he also knew the value of a funny bit with a dog. While Shakespeare’s Macbeth is bloody and dark, it also contains one of the funniest scenes the Bard ever wrote, because Shakespeare wants to gives his audience a break from the unrelenting horror or the story. This comic relief, or even a glimpse of levity, was sorely lacking in Nesbo’s version which is unrelentingly grim from top to bottom.
Overall: if you’re after a jet-black story, don’t know or remember much of the original version and are a fan of Nesbø’s writing, I’d give this a go. Otherwise, read the original!
Claire Huston / Art and Soul
A good thoughtful review, Claire. I liked your well-justified criticisms of what was obviously the difficult task of updating the Bard.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you! I see other readers have been very harsh, which I think is unfair. He’s done his best and even the bits which fail are interesting. Plus I’d never take on adapting Shakespeare – I’d be terrified!
LikeLike
Great review! I like how you explained everything. I was wondering about this author, adn you answered my questions!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you 🙂 I think he was a great choice because it would be difficult for anyone to write a modern Macbeth but he has a good go at it. It doesn’t entirely work, but he had some good ideas and made some bold choices which I give him a lot of credit for. It can’t be easy taking on Shakespeare!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sounds intriguing. Now, of course, I want to read it to see if I agree!
LikeLiked by 2 people
It’s just a shame it’s not a bit shorter – you could read two or three other books in the same time! After I’d posted my review I looked at the others on amazon and some people had been very unkind. It’s not brilliant, but you have to admire the effort and ingenuity if nothing else! He clearly did his best, and I’d never take on Shakespeare, I’d be terrified!
LikeLiked by 2 people
I have a Romeo and Juliet version coming up soon!
LikeLiked by 2 people
I still haven’t read any Jo Nesbo but it’s on my list. I probably wouldn’t pick this one, though! Great review!
LikeLiked by 2 people
I don’t think I’d recommend anyone start with this one either! I still want to read The Snowman but think it would scare me silly! 🙂
Thank you x
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very intrigued to read now following our chat and your review!
Shall look out for this on the Kindle deals or request from the library as it’s a tenner on Amazon for the KIndle book 😦
LikeLiked by 2 people
Definitely one to get from the library! At least that way if you want to abandon it you wont feel bad about wasting money 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ah pity about this lacking the comedy! Great review!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Not even a smile!! Pitch black!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh dear!
LikeLiked by 1 person