Scan barcode
A review by tandewrites
Lady Macbeth by Ava Reid
dark
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
2.0
I will preface this review by saying that it is negative. I gave this book two stars: one because I finished it, and one because I think I might've found it enjoyable if it was an original work rather than a retelling. It isn’t intentionally mean-spirited, it's just…not positive. I received an eARC of this book from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
‘Lady Macbeth’ is Ava Reid’s reimagining of Shakespeare’s most famous villainess, claiming to give her a voice, a past, and a power that transforms the story men have written for her. This was one of my most anticipated reads for the year because, although I’ve had a very polarising experience with Ava Reid’s works so far, I did really enjoy ‘A Study in Drowning’, which is the one I finished most recently so it may have clouded my perception of my previous reads.
I think the major downfall of ‘Lady Macbeth’ is that there is an almost non-existent reference to the source material. It’s set in Scotland. There are three witches. There are characters that share names and little else with Shakespeare’s characters. In my opinion, other than a very loose structure that mimics the play, those are the extent of the similarities. I was expecting a more accurate retelling rather than an ‘inspired’ reimagining as this was marketed specifically as a retelling, so this is a root of a majority of the issues I have with this book.
This book joins the trend of feminist retellings of classic characters, but takes away all of Shakespeare’s Lady Macbeth’s defining qualities to do so. I’ve seen another Goodreads reviewer define it as ‘character assassination’, and I agree with that description fully. Reid’s reimagining turns our beloved ambitious middle-aged Scottish woman who gaslight gatekeep girlbosses her way to the top into a teenage French girl with no ambition who spends most of her time describing the Scottish men as violent and brutish in comparison to all other men, which I found to be a very jarring addition which was never challenged or developed in any way. Reid’s Lady Macbeth is watered down and turned into a ghost of her Shakespearean self. Where is the woman who bullied her husband for not wanting to commit murder? Where is the woman who is torn apart by the guilt of committing said murder herself? There’s not even a reference to the iconic “out damned spot” moment, which was a defining moment in me studying the play for my GCSE’s. There’s not a reference to many of the iconic moments from the play, which made me wonder what the purpose of this story was at many points. The book and the play follow the same beats, but the book has significantly less enthusiasm. I think I would’ve enjoyed it more if all references were removed and it stood as an original work.
Reid’s Lady is defined only by the men in her life. There is one man in this book who the Lady sees in a positive light-even though he treats her as a prize to be taken every moment he is on the page-and he happens to be the only man who isn’t fully Scottish. He’s a love interest who she has no chemistry with, and I felt like removing their relationship from the plot would have a limited impact on the book as a whole. He can also turn into a dragon, something that only seems relevant when he needs to (not metaphorically) swoop in and save the day. I never thought I’d be a men defender, but we’re told by the Lady continuously that woman good man bad with very little on page to support this, mostly due to the sheer absence of female characters in this supposedly feminist retelling. Macbeth is described as someone who always objectifies women and doesn’t treat them like people, even though the Lady is constantly surprised by how much he listens to her and values her opinions on how he fights his battles. ‘Man bad’ is the Lady’s universal truth, but a majority of them are fine when she interacts with them, or they’re cartoonishly evil. Reid seems to be toeing the line between man hating and Scottish hating in this book, but that is a whole other point for me to delve into.
I am aware that the sexism and misogyny may be an accurate depiction of what was going on historically, but it’s not something in Shakespeare’s Lady Macbeth’s story that suggests that these things represent her. Rather than being a feminist retelling or having the same amount of agency as the original Lady, this book seems to construct a significantly more sexist and patriarchal world for the sake of the Lady having the opportunity to break free. The lack of women in this book feels more and more noticeable with each description of a hulking Scottish man who laps up the blood of his enemies. There is a woman-the Lady’s handmaiden-who arrives to the castle with her in the first chapter and disappears a few paragraphs later, and there is a woman later on who the Lady ‘saves’ from being sent to a nunnery who becomes the new handmaiden and appears in a handful of scenes (which were potentially the most interesting ones, too). However, in comparison to our tiny delicate Lady, these women are constantly described by how ugly the Lady finds them and how wide their shoulders are (mentioned multiple times) rather than their personalities or any notable details about their lives. Other significant women include the witches who do little more than say “Hail Macbeth” and vague prophecies (which was to be expected, I guess), and the Lady’s father’s wife who is only really described as ‘mad’.
While I really enjoyed Reid’s writing in ‘A Study in Drowning’, it felt bland for me here, more passive than I’ve experienced in her previous works. I couldn’t connect to any of the characters, largely due to the lack of relatable emotions or believable intentions. The story was told, but there was no action: a majority of the intrigue takes place off page while the Lady sits in the castle, which is believable for the sake of the plot, but simply uninteresting to read for so many pages. The Lady is also self-described as good with faces and names and little details about people, yet doesn’t remember any names or faces or details by the end of the book, and it’s these little inconsistencies scattered throughout that really disrupted my reading experience. There’s a lot of moments where the Lady tells herself that she’s asking smart and subtle questions to learn more about Macbeth, then she immediately follows them up with incredibly un-smart and un-subtle questions that made me reevaluate everything I had been told about her. It’s hard to become invested in the protagonist when they don’t even seem to understand what they’re doing and why.
Overall, ‘retelling’ is not the word I would use to describe this book, and this is unfortunately not one of the ways I wish to reimagine such a powerful, iconic woman who made me care about Shakespeare’s works.
‘Lady Macbeth’ is Ava Reid’s reimagining of Shakespeare’s most famous villainess, claiming to give her a voice, a past, and a power that transforms the story men have written for her. This was one of my most anticipated reads for the year because, although I’ve had a very polarising experience with Ava Reid’s works so far, I did really enjoy ‘A Study in Drowning’, which is the one I finished most recently so it may have clouded my perception of my previous reads.
I think the major downfall of ‘Lady Macbeth’ is that there is an almost non-existent reference to the source material. It’s set in Scotland. There are three witches. There are characters that share names and little else with Shakespeare’s characters. In my opinion, other than a very loose structure that mimics the play, those are the extent of the similarities. I was expecting a more accurate retelling rather than an ‘inspired’ reimagining as this was marketed specifically as a retelling, so this is a root of a majority of the issues I have with this book.
This book joins the trend of feminist retellings of classic characters, but takes away all of Shakespeare’s Lady Macbeth’s defining qualities to do so. I’ve seen another Goodreads reviewer define it as ‘character assassination’, and I agree with that description fully. Reid’s reimagining turns our beloved ambitious middle-aged Scottish woman who gaslight gatekeep girlbosses her way to the top into a teenage French girl with no ambition who spends most of her time describing the Scottish men as violent and brutish in comparison to all other men, which I found to be a very jarring addition which was never challenged or developed in any way. Reid’s Lady Macbeth is watered down and turned into a ghost of her Shakespearean self. Where is the woman who bullied her husband for not wanting to commit murder? Where is the woman who is torn apart by the guilt of committing said murder herself? There’s not even a reference to the iconic “out damned spot” moment, which was a defining moment in me studying the play for my GCSE’s. There’s not a reference to many of the iconic moments from the play, which made me wonder what the purpose of this story was at many points. The book and the play follow the same beats, but the book has significantly less enthusiasm. I think I would’ve enjoyed it more if all references were removed and it stood as an original work.
Reid’s Lady is defined only by the men in her life. There is one man in this book who the Lady sees in a positive light-even though he treats her as a prize to be taken every moment he is on the page-and he happens to be the only man who isn’t fully Scottish. He’s a love interest who she has no chemistry with, and I felt like removing their relationship from the plot would have a limited impact on the book as a whole. He can also turn into a dragon, something that only seems relevant when he needs to (not metaphorically) swoop in and save the day. I never thought I’d be a men defender, but we’re told by the Lady continuously that woman good man bad with very little on page to support this, mostly due to the sheer absence of female characters in this supposedly feminist retelling. Macbeth is described as someone who always objectifies women and doesn’t treat them like people, even though the Lady is constantly surprised by how much he listens to her and values her opinions on how he fights his battles. ‘Man bad’ is the Lady’s universal truth, but a majority of them are fine when she interacts with them, or they’re cartoonishly evil. Reid seems to be toeing the line between man hating and Scottish hating in this book, but that is a whole other point for me to delve into.
I am aware that the sexism and misogyny may be an accurate depiction of what was going on historically, but it’s not something in Shakespeare’s Lady Macbeth’s story that suggests that these things represent her. Rather than being a feminist retelling or having the same amount of agency as the original Lady, this book seems to construct a significantly more sexist and patriarchal world for the sake of the Lady having the opportunity to break free. The lack of women in this book feels more and more noticeable with each description of a hulking Scottish man who laps up the blood of his enemies. There is a woman-the Lady’s handmaiden-who arrives to the castle with her in the first chapter and disappears a few paragraphs later, and there is a woman later on who the Lady ‘saves’ from being sent to a nunnery who becomes the new handmaiden and appears in a handful of scenes (which were potentially the most interesting ones, too). However, in comparison to our tiny delicate Lady, these women are constantly described by how ugly the Lady finds them and how wide their shoulders are (mentioned multiple times) rather than their personalities or any notable details about their lives. Other significant women include the witches who do little more than say “Hail Macbeth” and vague prophecies (which was to be expected, I guess), and the Lady’s father’s wife who is only really described as ‘mad’.
While I really enjoyed Reid’s writing in ‘A Study in Drowning’, it felt bland for me here, more passive than I’ve experienced in her previous works. I couldn’t connect to any of the characters, largely due to the lack of relatable emotions or believable intentions. The story was told, but there was no action: a majority of the intrigue takes place off page while the Lady sits in the castle, which is believable for the sake of the plot, but simply uninteresting to read for so many pages. The Lady is also self-described as good with faces and names and little details about people, yet doesn’t remember any names or faces or details by the end of the book, and it’s these little inconsistencies scattered throughout that really disrupted my reading experience. There’s a lot of moments where the Lady tells herself that she’s asking smart and subtle questions to learn more about Macbeth, then she immediately follows them up with incredibly un-smart and un-subtle questions that made me reevaluate everything I had been told about her. It’s hard to become invested in the protagonist when they don’t even seem to understand what they’re doing and why.
Overall, ‘retelling’ is not the word I would use to describe this book, and this is unfortunately not one of the ways I wish to reimagine such a powerful, iconic woman who made me care about Shakespeare’s works.