This is actually a comment.

I have been having difficulties with this blog and it won't let me post comments. It also deleted my comment after I wrote it. Technology angers me. Anyway, if you're reading this, pretend it is a comment on Evan's post.

The witches never actually say that Banquo's children will be kings. They say only that Banquo will "get kings." (1.3.70) Macbeth and Banquo immediately assume this means Banquo's children would be kings, but there is another interpretation. Maybe, since Banquo's death was a major factor in the people of Scotland rebelling and Macbeth being overthrown, Banquo is considered as being the creator of the situation in which Malcolm took power. Banquo would then "get kings," (1.3.70), both getting Macbeth by removing him from the throne, and getting Malcolm, who he places on the throne. The witches may have only shown Macbeth the vision of kings looking like Banquo because Malcolm and his heirs will be a line of kings created by Banquo in a sense, even though they are not Banquo's descendants.

Act 2 Scene 3

Does anyone remember the porter in act 2 scene 3?  Well my project is on that scene and I came across an idea that I thought was very important to one of the main themes in the whole play.  Macbeth struggled with "wearing the pants" in the relationship for the first half of the play (until he killed Duncan) because he was not mentally tough enough to control he and Lady Macbeth's marriage.  The porter talks to Macduff and Lennox about how alcohol stops one from being able to perform sexual tasks while Lady Macbeth kind of sexually taunts Macbeth, holding his "man card" over his head when he refuses to kill Duncan at first.  Alcohol does not make Macbeth refuse to killing Duncan, it is just his sober and straight thinking mind that deprives him of sex from his wife while he refuses to murder someone. I find it interesting that a drunk would subtly point out this detail while drawing attention to how he is no long speaking poetically when his lines come up.  Let me know what you think... 

Donalbain

In Macbeth, it is established that King Duncan has two sons. He has his older son, Malcolm, who he makes the Prince of Cumberland and his heir to the throne in act one, scene four, and he has his younger son, Donalbain. In later acts of the play, Malcolm plays a significant role. He decides to flee to England after Duncan dies in act two, scene three because he worries he might be blamed for killing Duncan. While in England, he persuades the King of England to provide him with 10,000 soldiers under the command of an experienced English general, Siward to remove Macbeth from the throne of Scotland. This army, when joined with rebelling Scottish troops, forms a force that is able to defeat Macbeth's troops and take Dunsinane in act five, allowing Macduff to kill Macbeth. Therefore, Malcolm is very important.

Donalbain, however, does next to nothing in the entire play. As Duncan's younger son, he is not Duncan's heir and so is already less important than Malcolm. In the entire play, he only speaks in act two, scene three, in which Duncan's corpse is discovered. He says, "To Ireland I. Our separated fortune shall keep us both the safer. Where we are, there's daggers in men's smiles. The near in blood, the nearer bloody," (2.3.163-166) to Malcolm after Malcolm has told Donalbain that he plans on going to England. Donalbain says that they should split up and flee to avoid getting killed. He then presumably flees to Ireland. However, he could also go to England, stay in Scotland, commit suicide, or practice breakdancing. There is no way of knowing what he actually does, because he simply disappears after act two, scene three. He never appears again in the play after this scene, and is rarely mentioned. Those few times when he is mentioned give no information as to what he is doing or where he is. Unlike Malcolm, he does not raise an army, overthrow Macbeth, become king, or do anything.

Why does Shakespeare include Donalbain? The play already has quite a few characters who actually do things, yet the few lines Donalbain has could be either cut or changed to Malcolm's lines. It seems that including Donalbain in the play serves no purpose other than giving readers/people watching the play another character to try to keep track of. Does Donalbain have some symbolic role in the play? If so, what? It seems it would be hard for a character to have any meaningful symbolic value when he has about three lines. Is his character relevant? Could he and should he have been cut from the play? I say he has no symbolic value and could and should have been cut.

Fleeing Fleance

   In Macbeth many conflicts are resolved, however there is one line of plot that is sort of discontinued. We never hear about what happened to Fleance Clearly he fled the scene after his fathers murder, yet we know he does not die in the wilderness because he eventually becomes king. However, if Malcolm is the current king, as of the end of Macbeth, and Fleance has no relation to Malcolm through blood, then how does Fleance, as the prophecy predicted, become king?
   If we look at the text closely we see really the only way Macbeth could have fulfilled the prophecy was through treachery as he too had no ties directly to the king. Now Fleance is in this similar situation. He too has a prophecy to fulfill that will get him power and money, yet the only real way to get it would be through treachery. However, this will only be the case if Banquo told Fleance about the prophecy, otherwise Fleance might not take the actions to fulfill it, or it will happen in a different way, like war or disease that will bring it to the throne. Macbeth see's eight kings that are descendants of Banquo so we know that his journey to the throne will be more successful.
   However, as Shakespeare leaves this part of the story, I think it is implied that Fleance might one day become the king to fulfill the second half of the prophecy.

A foil of Macbeth and Walter White (It had to be done)

Pre-Note: I haven't finished Breaking Bad, so if you are going to comment a spoiler *cough* Evan *cough* please don't.

So for those of you who haven't seen Breaking Bad, I know we watched the trailer in class but I'll expand a little bit more. Basically Breaking Bad is a TV show about a man named Walter White, a high school chemistry teacher who finds out he has lung cancer. Even worse, the doctor told Walter that the cancer was practically incurable, and then he would only have a matter of months before his death. Walter realizes he needs to make a large amount of money and fast before he dies, to provide for his wife, disabled son, and on-the-way baby. Walter is conflicted about what he should do until he sees a news report about a meth lab bust, and how the police found thousands of dollars in this one meth lab. With this idea planted in his mind, Walter asks his DEA brother in law to go see a drug bust happen. It is at this drug bust that Walter sees an old student of his, Jesse Pinkman. Walter ultimately decides to go to Jesse and ask him to partner up and cook crystal meth. Jesse agrees, and thus begins one of the greatest shows on TV ever.


As we talked about before our reading of Macbeth, one of the main themes in Macbeth is how Macbeth crosses legal and moral boundaries in order to achieve the one goal he wanted to achieve before his death. He wanted that throne. He wanted it so badly he ended up seeking help from the most unlikely of people. He ended up committing murder, not only a legal crime but also incredibly taxing on his moral boundaries. He ended up putting the important people in his life in danger (or killing them... same thing) for what? To get the goal he so desperately needed to reach.

Now, let's compare the two.

Differences:
Macbeth wants to be king, Walter wants to make money for his family before his inevitable death. These two motivations are completely different, as Macbeth wants to be king because it's what he wants, whereas Walter wants to make money because he doesn't want his family to go poor after his death.



Similarities:
Macbeth turned to the unlikely and mysterious witches for help, Walter turned to drug addict, chemistry flunker Jesse Pinkman. This is a huge similarity between Macbeth and Walter, for they both go to people they otherwise would not have spoken to for help.

Macbeth murdered the important people in his life, Duncan, Banquo, and even put his wife in a position where she drives herself so crazy that she ultimately commits suicide. Walter, with getting involved in the drug world, puts his wife and entire family in trouble. There are many instances throughout the show where Walter meets some crazy drug dealer. Sure Walter operates under a fake name, but he is still putting his family in jeopardy, for resourceful drug dealers can track down anyone. The act of putting significant people in one's life in danger is someone both Macbeth and Walter do to ultimately achieve their goal.

Wow that was long, did I beat Emma? I'd be super proud. Anyway, if you have any TV shows or stories that have characters truly foilable to Macbeth, feel free to use a comment.

And also, please watch Breaking Bad. Finish all of your homework, and watch it. It's worth your time.

Foiling with my two favorite superheroes

Foiling:

Being a huge superman fan, i couldn't help but notice DC's brilliant foiling in their comic books. Much like how Macbeth and Macduff/ Lady macbeth and Lady macduff are juxtaposed, Superman and Batman are juxtaposed. For example (s)...

Batman catches bad guys at night, superman does in the day. Batman wears a mask to hide his and other's identity when fighting, Superman wears a "mask" when he doesn't fight. Batman is a preemptive super hero and catches people before they do bad stuff, Superman waits until after the bad guys do bad things. Bruce Wayne owns his company, whereas superman works as a reporter for one. Bruce Wayne is famous, Clark Kent is absolutely not. Bruce is a playboy, Clark pretends to be an awkward dude. Bruce is orphaned into billions of dollars, Clark is a poor farm boy from Kansas and his mother is still alive (his dad was too for a while but had a heart attack…). Batman is human, Superman is an alien. Batman has a son, and well… Superman doesn't settle down because he is immortal. Batman uses deductive reasoning, Superman uses his photographic memory. Batman uses gadgets he makes, but Superman doesn't need to because he is just so awesome already. Batman uses a natural made cave for his headquarters, and Superman made his with Kryptonian technology

However, both are male, refuse to kill, (originally) have blue uniforms, were made in the same year by the same author, use alter egos to hide their identity, are allied with the Justice League, and enjoy solitude.

The Power of Fate

One of the overarching themes in Macbeth is the power of fate. Fate is the concept that life is predetermined, that is, that one’s experiences are inevitable and will happen regardless of one’s actions. When the witches prophesize that Macbeth will become Thane of Cawdor and king, Macbeth accepts this as his fate. To be fair, it does seem like the witches know what they’re talking about, since they have barely delivered the prophecy before Macbeth is being named Thane of Cawdor. And again, later in the play, when Macbeth does in fact become king, it’s tempting to think that these events really were predestined. But what if they weren’t? What if the power of fate only existed in Macbeth’s mind, and he ended up where he did as a result of his own free will? Certainly his actions were heavily influenced by fate either way; but in one scenario, he killed Duncan because this was the inescapable destiny set for him by some higher power, and in the other, whether he killed Duncan or not was completely up to him—but he chose to because he was convinced that it was unavoidable. Of course, only Shakespeare will ever know the answer. Either way, it’s interesting to consider whether Macbeth was in control of himself or not, and if he was, to think about how his belief that he wasn’t impacted his actions.

Birds, Birds, Birds

I noticed in Act 4 Scene 2 that birds are mentioned several times. This is the scene in which Ross talks to Lady Macduff about her husband fleeing and leaving his family behind defenseless. It is first mentioned when Lady Macduff says, "for the poor wren/(The most diminutive of birds) will fight,/Her young ones in her nest, against the owl" (4.2.11-13). She is saying that even the smallest and weakest of birds is willing to hold its own against a bigger and stronger bird if it is to protect its family. The motif is then continued when Lady Macduff explains to her son that Macduff is dead. He says that he will live like birds do. Lady Macduff says to her son, "Poor bird, thou'dst never fear the net nor lime,/The pitfall nor the gin" (4.2.40-41). She is upset that Macduff left them alone and she believes that her son is helpless and in danger. Her son replies, "Why should I, mother? Poor birds they are not set/for" (4.2.42-43). He believes that the murderers would not want to kill him because he is small and insignificant. When the murderer arrives, he says to Macduff's son, "What, you egg?/Young fry of treachery! (4.2.94-95). He says that he will kill the boy because he is the son (or the egg) of the traitorous Macduff. I believe Shakespeare uses so many bird metaphors here because this is the scene in which Macduff has "taken flight" and abandoned his family at the defenseless nest. Lady Macduff is wondering whether she should do the same.

Macbeth Post

Although I mentioned this topic in class today, I figured that I would attempt to go into more depth with it. As we were having the good v evil discussion, I came across the idea that Shakespeare wrote this story from the aspect of the villain/traitor. (Macbeth) Most times, when we see movies or read books, the author gives us the perspective of the "good guy." Some great examples of this are all of the superhero stories that we have known since we were little. We get the perspective of Superman, Batman and Spiderman (who are known to be the good guys), instead of the perspective of Bizzaro, The Joker, and the Green Goblin. Where we see the motives for the superheroes (most of the time its justice), we never see what motivates the villains...we just assume it is a bad thing and we accept these superheroes as good guys because thats the way that the author wanted us to see it as. This same idea can be related to Macbeth. Some readers may get caught in the idea that Macbeth is the hero because we see his motives and they may seem reasonable to some people, but in realty HE is the villain whereas Malcolm and Macduff are the superheroes, who are fighting for justice.

Prophecy

It is interesting that at the beginning of the play, Macbeth tries to speed up his fate by killing Duncan. But by the end of the play, Macbeth is trying to stop his fate by challenging his enemies because he is confident that he is unstoppable. The second apparition says to Macbeth that, "The pow'r of man, for none of woman born/ shall harm Macbeth" (4, 1, 80-81). Because of this, Macbeth thinks that he is indestructible. The third apparition says to Macbeth that he "shall never vanquish be until/ great Birnam Wood to high Dunsinane Hill/ Shall come against him." (4, 1, 92-94). Macduff was able to make the prophecy come true because he was technically not born from his mother since his mother had a c-section.

Foiling Around with Lady Macbeth and Banquo

We talked in class about how Lady Macduff acted as a foil for Lady Macbeth and how Lady Macduff had a maternal instinct which contrasted Lady Macbeth's lack of maternal instinct from the spell in the beginning of the play. Another interesting comparison would be Lady Macbeth and Banquo because Banquo is very similar to Lady Macduff in some ways. He has a paternal instinct where he wants to protect his son, Fleance. This is especially apparent when he dies and says "Fly, good Fleance, fly, fly, fly!" as opposed to something along the lines of "please don't kill me".  It's also interesting that Banquo and Lady Macduff are the only two characters to have this direct contact with their child.  With Lady Macduff this is regarded as maternal instinct, so it's as if Banquo is taking the role of mother. Lady Macbeth also switches her role by acting as the "man" of the marriage and questioning Macbeth's manliness.

Some thoughts on Macbeth

So I was noticing some motifs in Macbeth that I thought were interesting and I figured it would be best to get my blog post over with now. I promise there will be no spoilers. Wow sorry this all ended up a lot longer than I thought it would, but I hope people read it regardless and I think it gives a lot of opportunities for responses. Enjoy!

Motif #1: Faces

I noticed, as I'm sure many of you did as well, that there is some irony in the beginning of the play regarding comments characters make about faces. For instance, in act 1 scene 4 Duncan and Malcom are speaking of the original traitorous Thane of Cawdor, and Malcom says something about how he never would have guessed him to be a traitor. Duncan responds, "There's no art to find the minds construction in the face / he was a gentleman on whom I built and absolute trust" (1. 4. lines 11-14). He is pretty much saying that sometimes one is unable to tell someone's true intentions by the pieces of themselves that they reveal to the public. Later, Lady Macbeth tells her husband, "Your face, my Thane, is as a book where men may read strange matters"(1. 5. lines 61-62). I find it ironic that she tells her husband that his intentions are blatantly obvious, and that he must learn to mask himself. And of course, Duncan builds an absolute trust on him as well, and Macbeth, as well as the previous Thane of Cawdor, becomes a traitor against Duncan. oh and also Macbeth says, at the end of act one, "false face must hide what the false heart doth know." Crazy, right?

Motif #2: Clothing

In act 1 scene 3, Ross and Angus come to tell Macbeth that he is to be crowned Thane of Cawdor. As soon as Ross tells him this title belongs to him, Macbeth exclaims, "the Thane of Cawdor lives, why do you dress me in borrowed robes?"(1. 3. lines 108-109). He compares the title to a piece of clothing he is being given that clearly belongs to someone else. Later in the scene, Banquo comments to the Lords, "New honours come upon him, like our strange garments, cleave not to the mould but with the aid of use" (1. 3. lines 144-146). Banquo once again compares power and titles to garments, which he states are strange when new, but gradually broken in as they are used. Finally, fast forwarding a bit in the play, in act 5 scene 2 lines 20-22, Angus says of Macbeth, "now does he feel his title hang loose about him, like a giant's robe upon a dwarfish thief." This is yet another example of the motif of clothing, which is actually sort of ironic. Banquo had said he would grow used to his power, but Angus makes it clear that Macbeth is quite incapable of holding his title as king of Scotland, these robes are much to big for him. I found this clothing thing interesting.

Motif #3: Messenger

Now I think I am biased to the Thane of Ross because of my playing him in a stage production of Macbeth, but I have analyzed his character and read his lines a hundred times over, and in my quest to find his motives throughout the play, I determined he was mainly a messenger, though the themes of his messages change almost as quickly as the play. In the beginning, he comes to Duncan to tell him that "to conclude, the victory fell on us!" in the battle, and also "nor would we deign him [Sweno, the King of Norway] burial of his men till he disbursed, at St. Colme's Inch, ten thousand dollars to our general use" (end of act 1 scene 2). He is delivering very good news about the war against Norway to the king himself. He also delivers good news to Macbeth in the next scene, act 1 scene 3, when he says, "The king hath happily received, Macbeth, the news of thy success...and everyone did bear thy praises in his kingdom's great defense and poured them down before him" and later, "And, for an earnest of greater honour, he bade me, from him, call thee Thane of Cawdor. In which addition, hail, most worthy thane, for it is thine" (act 1 scene 3 lines 89-107). This all happens when the play is still generally cheerful, and Ross is delivering happy news to Macbeth and Duncan. However, as the play begins to darken, Ross is used as a messenger for more unfortunate matters. For instance, in act two scene four, Ross says to the elder, "is it the night's predominance or the day's shame that darkness does the face of earth entomb when living light should kiss it?" (lines 9-10). The news he delivers in gradually darkening. Further along in the play, in act four scene two, he is speaking with Lady Macduff after her husband flees, and he says "cruel are the times when we are traitors and do not know ourselves, when we hold rumor from what we fear yet know not what we fear, but float upon a wild and violent sea, each way and more" (lines 18-22). He has prior knowledge of where Macduff is and what he is planning, and Ross tries desperately to impart wisdom of how to survive in these cruel times on Macduff's wife. I swear I only have two more examples. So speaking of his messages getting gradually darker, i think it climaxes when Ross arrives at the chapel and tells Macduff, "your castle is surprised, your wife and babes savagely slaughtered" (act 4 scene 3, lines 204-205). He even confirms his role as messenger by saying, "when i came hither to transport the tidings which i have so heavily born..." earlier in that scene. My final example of his critical role in the play is when he says, at the end of the play to Siward, "your son, my lord, has payed a soldier's debt......etc etc etc." no more spoilers. Anyway i think it is interesting how a seemingly insignificant character has such an affect on the others, and transports messages that darken and lighten with the mood of the play as a whole.

If you made it this far, congratulations. I am done. Thank you for reading. Some wonderings to leave you with:

did shakespeare naturally write in Iambic pentameter? did he feel the rhythm as he wrote? or did he have to work and re-work his sentences in order to make it sound poetic?

There are so many beautiful and complex characters in Shakespeare's works, but i find it so hard to believe all of them were created by just one man. He was brilliant. I was thinking about a comparison between Malvolio in "Twelfth Night" and Macbeth, and comparing their slow descent into madness, which is actually quite similar despite the fact that it is happening for radically different reasons.

FINALLY i leave you with this video. Granted we haven't read the scene yet, but i think we will read it over the weekend, and it's a really cool swordfight from the production i was in. Brown hair guy is macbeth, long blond hair guy with the scottish accent  is macduff. Enjoy.





The end. bye.
-Emma