BLOG QUESTION:
1. Fate
vs. Free Will:
The
weird sisters make many prophecies regarding Macbeth and his actions throughout the course of the play. Are the choices and events predicted by the witches predestined by fate, or are
they a result of Macbeth’s own free will? Discuss the role of fate,
free will, and prophecy in the decisions made by Macbeth. Support your answer
using supporting evidence from the text.
2. Who
is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
At
the start of the play, Macbeth, a good and noble Thane, sought only to serve the King.
By the end, he has become an arrogant, paranoid murderer. In your opinion,
who is more responsible for this transformation, Macbeth himself or Lady Macbeth? Use supporting evidence from the text.
3. Good
vs. Evil?
Some
have portrayed the play Macbeth as a classic story of good and evil, with the witches and Lady Macbeth on one side,
Banquo, Malcom and Macduff on the other,
and Macbeth somewhere in between. Others feel that it is more complex, that there are deeper psychological
themes involved beneath the initial layer of good
vs. evil. Is Macbeth a story of good vs.
evil, or of complex psychological issues? Support your response with evidence from the
text.
Directions: You will be writing an
initial response and 2 comments responding to your peers' responses. Your
initial response must be 8-10 sentences in length and thoughtful. There are 65 students (both periods combined) so there will be 65 initial posts.
Of these 65, you must respond to or comment on a minimum of 2 of them. These
must be thoughtful responses and/or comments, at least 2-3 sentences in length.
Please identify the person you are
responding to in your comment so that it becomes more of a connected
conversation; for example, "I hadn't thought of the point Hermione
Granger raised about the blah, blah, blah, etc. Initial
response is due by Tuesday night, December 15th by 11.59 p.m. Your responses will
be due by Thursday night, December 17th by 11:59 p.m.
Remember to be good
citizens here -- no hurtful comments. Remember you can respectfully disagree
with others. Show some thought here! I look forward to reading another great conversation!
Mrs. L
Calvin Tan
ReplyDeleteWho is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
Macbeth is a man of very good character. He did not win King Duncan’s favor by being a traitor, and him being designated the Thane of Cawdor is a testament to his achievements. His life in the beginning of the book was so dignified because of how great a person he was. However, he is very easily influenced. When the witches implanted the idea of greed into his mind, his high morality quickly crumbled, and he began to plan for murder, which he would have never thought of otherwise. Throughout the story, his inner good morals continuously battle with the negative influences that other people battered him with, such as the persistency of his wife to kill the king. However, it is also not the wife’s fault, because she was influenced by corrupted ideas that Macbeth told her. The Macbeths are innocent and have high morality, but they very easily succumb to greed. It is the witches that are to blame, because they implanted the destructive greed into the Macbeths minds.
Hi Calvin! Very interesting interpretation of placing the blame on the witches. I had not thought about that, as I perceived them to solely be the ones who foretold the future, but upon pondering this idea more, I realized that without their premonition, Macbeth or Lady Macbeth would not have inherited the idea of killing Duncan to reign.
DeleteHey Calvin! I also addressed the same prompt but hadn't even thought about how the witches influenced Macbeth's decision to take Duncan's life. Just like Kelsea, I had an impression that the witches' only predicted the future. However, after reading your critique and analyzing the how the witches only spoke in nouns, my point of view has completely changed. I am starting to agree with you that the witches are also responsible for the shift in Macbeth as well as for the murder of Duncan.
DeleteHey Calvin, I agree with your opinion. I think that Macbeth was easily influenced by the witches because of his greed. If the witches had not told him about his future, Macbeth would not have killed the king. Lady Macbeth is also not entirely at fault because she was influenced by what Macbeth wanted. If Macbeth had never told her that the witches said he was going to be king, she would not have pressured Macbeth into killing Duncan.
DeleteSerene Hart
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
1. Fate vs. Free Will
The witches’ manipulation of Macbeth, his own self-doubt and conflicting thought, and his self-realizing ambition show that it is free-will – and not fate – that determined the course of Shakespeare’s play. While some may consider the weird sisters’ foretelling of Macbeth’s future as a sign of his predestined fate, the witches’ themselves cannot be relied upon as accurate oracles. Instead, they make reasonable assumptions and utilize their limited abilities to ensure that their predictions come to pass. This is first seen after the witches hail Macbeth as thane of Cawdor. Macbeth and Banquo, upon learning of the previous thane’s fate from the messenger, both marveled at the witches’ apparent ability of prophecy, even though Macbeth had already been named thane of Cawdor. This influences the two men into believing that their other prophecies will come to pass. This, in turn, spurred Macbeth to action, which caused him to fulfill – through his own free will, though influenced by the witches’ suggestions of a possible kingship – his own predictions. The witches themselves possess no real power to ensure that their predictions come to pass. This is seen during the witches’ conversation, as the first witch relates the tale of the sailor whose boat she could not directly destroy, but could only “tempest-toss.” Thus, the witches enact this same kind of power to affect the course of events. This shows that the life of Macbeth is not fated to occur, but is directly influenced by the will of specific individuals.
Hey Serene! I didn't choose this topic to answer but thought it was interesting how you made the point that the witches should not be relied upon as accurate oracles. I originally thought Macbeth was more fated to follow his pre-destined track in life, as the witches made a big impression to me in the beginning of the play. Now I can see how some might think Macbeth is responsible of his choices, therefore leading to claiming that he is more to blame over Lady Macbeth of the murder of Duncan.
DeleteHey Serene,
DeleteI completely agree that Macbeth's own actions, rather than the witches' prophecies, led to his ultimate demise. Another interesting point to consider is Banquo's lack of proactive measures, juxtaposed with Macbeth's amplified desires and numerous murders, to secure his own prophecy as father of future kings; Both Banquo and Macbeth have their futures predicted but why is Macbeth the only one to take action? This could help add onto your argument that Macbeth, and not the witches, controls his own destiny.
Hi Serene,
DeleteEven though the witches are not necessarily main characters, I think it's important to reflect on their role in the play like you did. They are seen as supernatural beings and in many instances this would normally give some credibility to their words. In Macbeth, we can see them more along the lines of tricksters and manipulators in the way that they take some truths (Macbeth being named Thane of Cawdor) and make up something that they have not actually foreseen (Macbeth becoming king) in order to make themselves seem more trustworthy. This development was important to further show that Macbeth was weak in his ability to separate his reasoning from his ambition and desires.
Who is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of the play, Macbeth was a noble man. However, his wife is to blame for his transformation. I believe that Macbeth's transformation really started once he learned from the witches that he was destined to be king. Macbeth's greed for power overtook him, but his willpower was holding it at bay until Lady Macbeth came and convinced him to continue towards becoming king at any means necessary. She attacked his masculinity and his ego, which led him to commit the deed in an “I’ll show you” sense. Lady Macbeth manipulated her husband to murder King Duncan. Afterwards, Macbeth is under a lot of guilt and seems to buckle under it where as Lady Macbeth feels the same amount of guilt if not more and hardly has a conscious reaction to it.
-Quang Pham Period 6
Hey Quang I completely agree with the points made here, but I feel like you focus too much on the beginning of the play. Once Macbeth does become King he decides to take action that he deems necessary and not what his wife believes. He was the one that chose to kill Banquo to attempt to tie up loose ends, and he was the one who decides to kill Macduff's family out of spite. Lady Macbeth has lost her influence over him as soon as Macbeth becomes King. So we see that Macbeth's downfall is truly caused by only himself and the immoral choices that he decides to make. He even says himself that he will only do what he thinks and take action.
DeleteGood point, Clarence. Lady M does lose her influence after Macbeth becomes king. Which is interesting. Why is that?
DeleteHey Clarence,
DeleteI had completely forgotten about the end of the play when that happened. I guess Macbeth after being surrounded by evil from his wife for so long that her evil became a part of him. Referring back to the points I made in a previous answer her, I said that light is tainted by the darkness that surrounds it, but has no effect on the darkness. So my point is that Macbeth has been tainted by his wife and no longer needs her dark influence. Macbeth would have retained his light if his wife wasn't there.
Period 4
ReplyDeleteWho is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
Although both are responsible for their inevitable downfall, I believe Macbeth should ultimately be blamed for the play’s twisted events. True, the witches’ prophecies do plant seeds of evil into Macbeth’s mind, while his wife further fuels this evil. Nevertheless, Macbeth is responsible for taking matters into his own hands and attempting to fulfill the prophecy. After the first part of the prophecy is fulfilled, Macbeth is open to chance crowning him “without [his] stir” (Scene III). In essence, Macbeth is too rash and does not think through all the possible consequences of his actions. He is the one who kills King Duncan and sends out the murderers to kill Banquo, not Lady Macbeth. In fact, he could have ignored the weird sisters in the first place and continued living his life prosperously as a Thane. Although the first prophecy did come true, Macbeth should not have taken initiative by trying to quicken the fulfillment of the prophecy. However, he succumbs to greed which causes his downfall.
I agree with you in some aspects. It's true that it is his fault for succumbing to the greed, but had the temptation to sin not been there, he never would have thought to murder King Duncan. Also, the root cause of the additional horrible events that follow is the temptation by other people.
DeleteHi Ella! I concur with your claim that Macbeth is to blame for his transformation and the murder of Duncan. However, do you believe Macbeth was open to the idea of killing Duncan and carried through with his actions because he was irrational, or because he had an inner greed and ambition residing in him all this time? Do you believe that the words of the weird sisters and Lady Macbeth simply served as the impetus for him to reveal his true colors?
DeletePeriod 4
ReplyDeleteWho is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
When I first started reading the play, Lady Macbeth seemed to be the villain, manipulating and plaguing the Macbeth. I pitied Macbeth for his weakness against his wife and lurking moral conscience. However, as events started escalating, Macbeth’s character changed, and so did my opinions. His actions went from hesitant to clearly deliberate. After he irrationally killed the two guards when they proved to be dangerous to his plans, Macbeth’s morals and rationality continued spiraling down. I began to see Macbeth as more responsible than Lady Macbeth. Macbeth’s choices became almost solely motivated by his own greed for power, rather than wholly from Lady Macbeth’s words. Although Lady Macbeth was behind the scheming, she quickly fell from her reign when her health deteriorated, leaving Macbeth with his own thoughts and choices. He chose to mess with fate; he chose to have irrationality and greed clout his thoughts. He didn’t have to slaughter Macduff and his family. It was his choice alone to wholeheartedly believe the prophecy while believing that he can quicken the pace. Because of this development, I believe Macbeth is to be held responsible.
I also find it interesting how Lady Macbeth and Macbeth’s roles have switched. Macbeth, delusional with guilt after he killed Duncan, transferred to Lady Macbeth later in the play when she proved to be sick with guilt and grief. While on the other hand, Macbeth’s moral conscious disappeared as Lady Macbeth’s slowly creeped back. Lady Macbeth may have given him a head start in this struggle for power, but Macbeth allowed for it to continue; his greed for power grew stronger and stronger. In the end, Macbeth can only blame himself for this transformation. It was his weakness and poor decision making that led him to his end.
Hi Janice!
DeleteI agree with you completely! Even though Lady Macbeth definitely played a major role in the murder of King Duncan, Macbeth made the choice to kill him, as well as all of the ruthless and immoral choices following the initial murder. I also thought that it was funny that we both felt the same way: at first, I felt that Lady Macbeth had manipulated Macbeth into wanting the throne, but as we continued reading and Macbeth became increasingly immoral, my feelings toward him changed.
Hey Janice,
DeleteI find it interesting that you mentioned the disappearance of Macbeth's conscience even as that of Lady Macbeth returns full force. From Susan Snyder's literary criticism, I picked up a point that could fit well into your argument: Lady Macbeth's confinement within society's gender roles. In living vicariously through her husband - a man of great social standing - she is able to disconnect herself from the subservience expected of a woman then; so when Macbeth begins to take charge of his own decision-making, Lady Macbeth loses all that influence she has on him, and without a steel wall of rationality that comes with 'borrowed power,' she crumbles to the guilt which consumes her completely.
Laura McPherson Period 4
ReplyDelete2. Who is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
When Macbeth first hears the prophecies, he initially believes that if he is destined to be king, then he will be king; he doesn’t plan on doing anything extra to fulfill this prophecy. However, when he tells Lady Macbeth about the witches’ prophecies, she becomes obsessed with the idea of becoming royalty. Lady Macbeth tells Macbeth that in order for him to become king, Macbeth must kill Duncan, but Macbeth is extremely opposed to the idea. He believes Duncan is too loved and the consequences would be too great if he were to kill Duncan. After he ponders the ramifications, he decides that killing Duncan is not worth becoming King. It’s only with Lady Macbeth’s manipulating ways that he is forced to murder Duncan. Lady Macbeth mocks Macbeth’s manhood (or lack thereof) consequently causing Macbeth to convince himself that he is indeed a man and is therefore capable of killing King Duncan. Lady Macbeth pushes Macbeth into doing something he doesn't want to do which makes her, in my opinion, responsible. I suppose one could argue that it was Macbeth’s own responsibility to know that killing Duncan would be wrong, but we all know that men cannot be trusted when their masculinity and ego are being undermined...
Hello!
DeleteWhile I do agree that Lady MacBeth was a bit bent on putting her husband on the throne, I feel like MacBeth is not as innocent as you portray him as.
If he really strongly believed he should not do the deed, he would have not allowed himself to be so easily swayed. Additionally, I personally feel that his whole speech listing reasons why he decided against it was very reasonable. Despite this, he still killed Duncan. This shows that he wanted to become king more than he let even himself realize.
Lady MacBeth may have given him a push, but MacBeth was the one who decided to take the step and, as the rest of the play shows, keep walking the down the path of sins.
Hey Laura! I find your response intriguing and I do agree with you to some extent. It is very true that Lady Macbeth is the one who pushed Macbeth to do the dirty deed of killing King Duncan. However, Macbeth is the one who overlooked morality due to his greedy ways, ultimately leading him to kill Duncan; of course, with some moral support from Lady Macbeth.
Delete2. Who is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
ReplyDeleteMacbeth is to blame for everything; he made the mistake in the beginning of the play by meeting the 3 witches and listening to them when they said, “All hail, Macbeth, that shalt be king hereafter!” (1.3.53) and bidding them to “stay, you imperfect speakers. Tell me more.” (1.3.73) Yes, he was intrigued by the idea of being king, and even more intrigued by that fact that these Weird Sisters- those capable of magic and witchcraft- were feeding him this information. When Macbeth chose to believe their predictions, his thoughts became corrupted and his actions followed suit. Furthermore, although Lady Macbeth questioned his manhood and provoked him, “Wouldst thou have that/ Which thou esteem’st the ornament of life/ And live a coward in thine own esteem” (1.7.45), Macbeth could have disregarded her criticism and treated her as insignificant (I say this at the risk of sounding misogynistic). But he chose to listen to not only the three witches, but his wife as well. He let the idea of being king go to his head, and this desire is what ultimately led to his downfall. The transformation from loyal to deceitful is solely on Macbeth’s hands-- as he was the one who killed anyone that got in the way: King Duncan, Macdonwald, Duncan’s guards, Banquo, Lady Macduff, and Lady Macduff’s son. He truly believed “if chance will have [him] king, why, chance will crown [him]/ Without [his] stir” (1.4.157).
Hey Sina!
DeleteI completely agree with your argument and I love the way you clearly explained your stance! In fact, we have very similar stances on Macbeth's faults. Indeed, he could have ignored the Weird Sisters' prophecies in the first place—saving time, effort, and his life. He lets all the things influence him which causes his ultimate downfall. Truly, he is at fault.
Brendon Chou
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
Who is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
Macbeth’s transformation is yet another example of one’s downfall as a result of hubris. Shakespeare’s story of an exemplary man disfigured into a monster illustrates how evil exists inside even the seemingly noblest person. Despite Lady Macbeth’s pivotal role in his decision to commit regicide, Macbeth executed his crimes upon his own free will. After one encounter with the witches, he felt tempted to indulge into his ugly thoughts, deciding to cast aside everything he stands for to realize his desires. His ambition transformed into greed, and Lady Macbeth was only the catalyst. When it came down to murder itself, Macbeth chose to kill King Duncan; he chose to hire assassins to eliminate Macduff’s family and Banquo; he chose to take the prophecy into his own hands. Macbeth wanted power, and he believed he deserved to acquire it at the cost of others. As time passed, Macbeth even stopped consulting with his wife altogether in making irrational decisions during his rule as king. Ultimately, he always had the potential for arrogance and ruthlessness underneath his loyalty to Duncan, and, with the proper motivation from Lady Macbeth and the witches’ omen to prove his masculinity, his darker side emerged.
Jay Feng
DeletePeriod 4
Hey Brendon, your ideas and my ideas are surprisingly similar; you also consider Lady Macbeth as a catalyst to his actions. One thing I want to point out is that how do you know he always had the potential for arrogance and ruthlessness when he served for Duncan? I don't see it specified or implied in the book.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHi Brendon!
DeleteI thought your point that Macbeth is motivated by a want of power to be interesting. Immediately after receiving his prophecy, Macbeth is hesitant; there are no power-hungry soliloquies but instead a general acceptance that if it's meant to be, it will happen. Even after Lady Macbeth catalyzes his moral spiraling, it seems that he is motivated by the fear of losing the title he sacrificed (his honor, Duncan's trust, and later his sanity) so much to get more than a power hunger. Despite that, I definitely agree with your idea that Macbeth's darker side was not created by the Lady but instead already existed. If he truly was not to blame, he would have felt agonizing guilt over his actions and declined the throne.
1. Fate vs Free Will
ReplyDeleteThe main conflict found in the play was caused by Witch's appearance and their subsequent prophecy that Macbeth would become Thane of Cawdor and after King of Scotland. While this prophecy suggests that it is fate and not free-will that leads to Macbeth's demise, I believe the opposite is true. At the beginning of the play, Macbeth was simply content to let fate lead him to become King, just like how faith gave him the title of Thane of Cawdor. However, the influence of his greedy wife led him to CHOOSE to kill King Duncan in order to become King. With each prophecy, Macbeth did not let destiny decide his fate, instead he took matters into his own hand. He killed King Duncan and framed his sons and he killed Banquo in fear of losing power. Towards the end of the novel two more prophesies were given by the witches: he would be killed by a man not born of woman and he would be overthrown when Birnam Wood came to Dunsinane. While these prophesies proved to be true, I believe they were caused by Macbeth's ambition and arrogance. Because he chose to be a corrupt dictator , he could not even have a hope to rule since his Thane's would be unsatisfied by their rule and soon overthrow him. Finally Macbeth's arrogance in his belief that he could not be killed, led him to die in battle.
Jay Feng
DeletePeriod 4
Hey Clarence, I think it is interesting that you point out Macbeth has been taking his own decisions rather than letting his fate dictate him. However, I disagree with your last statement, because Macbeth knows he's heading toward death, but he rather dies in honor than fled in shame.
Hello!
DeleteI completely agree with you about how fate had little to no play on the events of the play! While the witches gave a vague outline of the events, MacBeth did have to actively make each choice, to kill or not to kill, as time went forward. The point on how the prophecy was, in the end, wrong about MacBeth's death further proves that fate is not what is the controlling factor.
Jay Feng
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
#2
Though the influence of Lady Macbeth toward Macbeth is notable, Macbeth is the one who ultimately makes all the decisions. Therefore, Macbeth is responsible for this transformation rather than lady Macbeth. After the murder of King Duncan, Lady Macbeth has been constantly trying to convince Macbeth to stop his rampage. However, blinded by his greed and fear, Macbeth attempts to eliminate each and every one of potential threats to his throne. Even during the Macbeth’s first murder, The Witches and Lady Macbeth were merely catalysts, since Macbeth is the one ultimately carrying out the actions. Some may blame the Witches for Macbeth’s actions, but note that Banquo doesn’t betray his king when he learns about the prophecy as well. Instead, Macbeth’s arrogant and ambitious nature pushes him to the stage he is at. From a more modernized perspective, murder is considered a crime even if someone else asks the murderer to, because the decision lies in the hands of the murderer.
Hi Jay! It was interesting to read through seeing how differently we interpreted the text and his character. I agree that Macbeth is proud and ambitious, but I also believe that he had a good nature initially. In my opinion, Lady Macbeth and the three witches played a much more significant role in the murder of Duncan!
Delete1. Fate vs. Free Will:
ReplyDeleteAlthough the prophecies that were made by the Weird Sisters influenced Macbeth’s free will, ultimately, it was predestined fate that these events would happen to Macbeth and that Macbeth’s increasing arrogance would lead him to his doom. In short, fate had already determined that the choices and events that occurred would already happen, culminating in Macbeth’s final downfall. The prophecies and Macbeth’s choices were all components of the fate that was given to Macbeth. The prophecies of the Weird Sisters that painted him as invincible against any person of “woman born” or that he would be alive until “birnam wood” come against him (IV.i.79-94). These “truths” led to his increasing arrogance as he chose to dismiss the messenger’s warning of moving trees, his personality changing from the thoughtful and rational general to a paranoid and barbaric king. Thus, Macbeth was unaware of the “loopholes” of the predictions that were possible; although the prophecies never changed, the creative possibilities of other ways for them to be fulfilled were not taken into account. However, the role of fate did take note of these loopholes in the Sisters’ purposely vague prophecies and predicted Macbeth’s subsequent haughtiness that would lead him to ignore any signs of imminent danger to his life. Macbeth’s thoughts of his invincibility is exposed moments before his death when he is surprised and confused about Macduff’s birth. Thus, the peculiar events that did bring about Macbeth’s ultimate death (Macduff being ripped from his mother’s womb prematurely and Malcolm using birnam wood to move toward the castle) were still true to the Sisters’ prophecies; however, it was all Macbeth’s free will that led him on the path to his already predetermined fate.
Hi Emily! I like how you incorporated both fate and free will into your response and really combined the two. However, personally, I don't believe that the events that occurred in Macbeth were predetermined. Had Macbeth decided not to kill Duncan, or even Banquo, would results still be the same? We don't know but in this case specifically I believe it was Macbeth's weak minded character that chose his own path. There was a clear decision to be made and he willingly chose murder over loyalty.
DeleteHey Emily!
DeleteInteresting approach by considering the combination of free will and fate. Something does seem odd though, how can the two truly coexist? Fate is similar to saying that if you leave something alone after a long enough time it will inevitably change to whatever state it is fated to change to. With the existence of the supernatural in the play's world you could argue that there is a predetermined path to everything and that fate is absolute. With this preconstruct of fate, free will is impossible. The characters in the play could appear to have free will, but ultimately, it seems as though that is false and that fate rules over the events in the play.
Hi Emily! I found your response extremely thoughtful and interesting since you were able to combine aspects of both fate and free will. However, I believe that Macbeth's actions were based more on his own personal decisions than a higher power than predetermined his actions for him. When looking back at who is to blame for the murder, I believe that the only person Macbeth can blame is himself. While the witches seemed to have prophesied the death, it was Macbeth who made the decision to murder the king on his own judgement. He already possessed such greedy ambitions and he freely chose to act upon his inner desires by carrying out the deed.
DeleteLady Macbeth is clearly to blame. It is undeniable that Macbeth made a major contribution in killing King Duncan; however, I got the impression throughout the play that he initially started out with a good heart but was simply influenced by circumstances that forced him to change (such as Lady Macbeth’s evil advice). To support this, in Act 1 Scene 3, Macbeth describes the thought of killing as a “horrid image", and that it makes his “heart pound and his hair stand on end.” Macbeth may be tempted to murder Duncan, but does not dare to carry the action out and tries to push his thoughts to the back of his mind. Even towards the end of the play when Macbeth loses his mind and is completely blinded by greed, I strongly believe that he wouldn’t have been put to such an extreme without the luring of the three witches and Lady Macbeth. Lady Macbeth is the one who really talks him into bolder actions, therefore has more to blame compared to Macbeth.
ReplyDeleteEileen Lee Period 6
Delete"Who is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?" is the question I chose!
Hey Eileen! I agree with your response and evidence to support it. I believe Macbeth was influenced by Lady Macbeth to become the greedy monster he is towards the end of play, compared to the moral character he is in the beginning. However, I do believe Macbeth is to blame for the death of Duncan because ultimately he is the one who carries out the action; though, Macbeth is very much swayed by Lady Macbeth's perseverance.
DeleteI agree with your thoughts on the question Eileen. Macbeth didn't want to murder Duncan and was only persuaded into doing so when Lady Macbeth insulted his manhood. There's almost no point in the entire play where Macbeth even says he wants to be king, so there's nothing really pushing him to murder Duncan except for Lady Macbeth.
DeleteHi Eileen, while I think everyone agrees neither Macbeth or Lady Macbeth were completely alone in the act of murder, I don't think we can just single out Lady Macbeth as the sole perpetrator. Without the Weird Sisters prophecy, who knows if the entire idea would have ever occurred to either of them. With that being said, I stay true to my belief that a persons actions belong to no one but themselves. Feeling sick or disturbed after killing someone that you really didn't want to kill is probably not uncommon and Macbeth had many opportunities in which he could have turned around and decided the ordeal wasn't worth it.
DeleteFate vs. Free Will
ReplyDeleteDylan Shen Period 6
Starting with an ominous and foreboding exposition, it’s easy to see how Macbeth’s destiny could be controlled by the fates. The witches’ prophecies do appear to come true at the end of the play. However, it is Macbeth’s free will, and ability to be easily influenced, that compels him to seek the throne.
Macbeth required both “fate” and “free will” to make his foretold future come true. The vague fate that the witches gave him planted the seeds of doubt in his mind. By addressing him as “Thane of Glamis”, “Thane of Cawdor”, and “King hereafter” (I. iii. 50 - 55), these titles constantly nag at Macbeth’s insecurities. When part of their prophecy comes true, Macbeth believes that the rest of the prediction will come true as well and actively tries to make that happen.
Macbeth freely seeks the throne “as destined” but is reinforced by Lady Macbeth. He decides not to kill Duncan but Lady Macbeth preys on his insecurity, asking him if he wants to “live a coward in [his] own esteem” (I. vii. 48). He feels like his masculinity is challenged and is thus convinced to kill Duncan.
Macbeth’s downfall is ultimately due to his own character and free-will. While not forced to do anything, he is easily swayed.
I agree with this mostly involving freewill. The prophecies do not have any direct influence of the actions of people, but they might have a psychological influence. However, it is still the person is still in control of their actions.
DeleteHey Dylan!!
DeleteYour analysis convinced me to believe that it was not simply fate or free will to have brought Macbeth to his current state, but a combination of both that had been responsible. Macbeth and his own "vaulting ambition" was what led to his downfall, although fate might have swayed him towards being evil. Very convincing, thought-provoking response!
Rachel Hunter - Period 6
ReplyDelete2. Who is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
It is easy to blame someone else for one’s own failures. In most cases, however, no one is responsible for another’s actions. With Macbeth’s character transformation, there were many circumstances which could have altered his choices, but the decisions he made came down to his own choosing. Lady Macbeth is clearly a manipulative character; she jabs at Macbeth’s emotional weaknesses saying, “When you durst do it, then you were a man,” to persuade him to murder Duncan (I. vii. 49). She knows that questioning Macbeth’s masculinity would surely affect him. Still, Macbeth should have his own set of strong morals and principles that would not be so easily swayed by anyone. Macbeth’s ability to be manipulated is a sign of his own personal weakness, which ultimately got the best of him. No one else was responsible for his actions, except for himself. One can say that Lady Macbeth was a catalyst to Macbeth’s downfall, but, in the end, the transformation from an honorable man to delusional murderer, was Macbeth’s doing.
Hi Rachel!
DeleteI completely agree with you in that it's easy to blame someone else for one's own failures. It seems like it's the best way to get any guilty or otherwise insecure feelings off one's chest.
I also used Lady Macbeth to support my argument that Macbeth's unfortunate transformation was entirely his fault, and I liked the way you included her questioning his masculinity. I especially agree with the point you made about Macbeth having his personal weakness because you're right! Throughout the play we do see his moral decline, and you coherently conveyed your thoughts on his actions :-)
Chrixy Lam P4
ReplyDelete2. Who is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
While it is indisputable that Lady Macbeth played a role in the initial murder of King Duncan, I believe that Macbeth bears the blame for his transformation. He allows himself to be swayed by Lady Macbeth’s provocative words (“When you dust do it, then you were a man; And to be more than what you were, you would be so much moe the man.” [Act 1, Scene 7, lines 55-57]). From the first encounter with the witches, Macbeth has thoughts tainted with murder and dishonesty (“If good, why do I yield to that suggestion whose horrid image doth unfix my hair and make my seated heart knock at my ribs against the use of nature?” [Act I, Scene 3, lines 148-151] ), and Lady Macbeth’s challenging words only stimulate him to act on thoughts or intentions that were already present in his mind. Macbeth was in no way forced to murder King Duncan; it was his own avarice that influenced his pursuance of the throne and his submission to Lady Macbeth’s inflammatory words.
Considering Macbeth’s willingness to have other people murdered (after the initial murder of King Duncan) to secure his place on the throne, his paranoia seems to be a consequence of his own overwhelming guilt. At first, Macbeth struggles with the remorse that comes with murder, but later on he becomes ruthless and has innocent people murdered without a second thought, revealing his underlying wicked nature, unearthed by his killing of King Duncan. As the play continues, we are able to see how Macbeth’s guilt transforms into regret, and then resignation, demonstrating his culpability for committing such a heinous crime.
Hi Chrixy!
DeleteI like how you provided actual quotes to back up your argument. Also, I completely agree with you that Lady Macbeth cannot completely bear the blame, or even most of it, since she would have had no influence upon her husband if he had not already the seeds of evil planted within his head. Moreover, as the play deepens, we can see how killing eventually becomes natural to him and that he himself came up with the idea to kill all those that opposes him, even Lady Macbeth is left in the dark about his plans to murder Banquo and his son.
Hi Chrixy!
DeleteI completely agree with you that Macbeth is to blame. I liked how you pointed out the progression of Macbeth's attitude from guilt to resignation. Although I concur that Lady Macbeth plays a large role in encouraging Macbeth to murder Duncan and is equally guilty for her role in the murder, I agree that Macbeth is responsible for his own actions as he was always in control of himself. Instead, he lets his mind be corrupted by the witches' prophecies and his wife's taunting of his manhood. Like you said, he always had a choice and no one ever forced him to commit such a terrible deed.
Good vs. Evil?
ReplyDeleteIs Macbeth a story of good vs. evil, or of complex psychological issues?
The Macbeths murder; the others do not. Consequently, the Macbeths are evil; the others are good. It is easy to think this way, a simple conclusion and a straightforward analysis. However, this kind of superficial logic is simply that: superficial. Although their actions seem to demonstrate the morality of each character, their ongoing mental deficiencies reveal that this is a the tragedy of complex psychological issues.
Lady Macbeth is initially ruthless and cunning, but she is clearly plagued by post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms as her state deteriorates. For instance, she wanders throughout the castle reliving the night of Duncan’s gruesome murder “yet all this while in a most fast sleep” (V. i. 7). Sleepwalking, an example of hyper arousal, is a symptom of PTSD. Additionally, her cries of “will these hands ne’re be clean” (V. i. 39) suggests guilt and avoidance, as she “avoids” her guilt so much in the light of day that it haunts her at night. Finally, although Shakespeare never explicitly states it, the Lady’s suicide implies her depression, a popular consequence of post-traumatic stress.
Furthermore, Macbeth’s hallucinations, delusions and bouts of violence suggest that the king experiences paranoia schizophrenia. He hallucinates more than once when he claims to have followed a floating dagger to the king’s chamber and again when he sees Banquo’s ghost dining in his place. In addition, he experiences delusions when he conspires against his friend because his “fears in Banquo stick deep” (III. i. 53-54). His violence also has no end; he kills King Duncan, Macduff’s family, and young Siward mercilessly.
As a result, the characters assumed to be simply “evil” are much deeper than that; they are plagued by psychological issues that affect judgment. Do these afflictions make them evil? Do they excuse their actions? There is not one right answer, but instead a complexity that only reflects the complexity of Shakespeare’s characters.
Hey Lindsey! I like the depth of your argument, pulling evidence from the play as symptoms to disorders such as PTSD and schizophrenia. Out of Shakespeare's realm, but your argument reminded me of many recent mass shootings we have had in the country from Sandy Hook to the Aurora theater shooting. Though undeniably evil acts, many murderers were found to have had mental illnesses. Psychological disorders add to the complexity when determining the cause of a crime, and your argument illustrates exactly that.
DeleteHi Lindsey!!
DeleteI loved how your interpretation was a diagnosis of the characters’ psychological state with reference to disorders seen today. You would be a great doctor! As we read in Susan Snyder’s “Macbeth: A Modern Perspective,” Shakespeare’s play is not a black-and-white story of good vs. evil; rather, several hints are included throughout to question the morality of characters viewed as inherently “good” and sympathize with others who were presented as “evil.” Just as you said, Macbeth and Lady Macbeth are plagued with guilt and PTSD which results in their irrational decisions following Duncan’s regicide, ultimately leading to their downfall. Evil did not win because good is supposed to triumph over evil in a formulaic story, but rather because of the complex psychological issues of each character. It is undeniable that the Macbeths’ crimes were cruel, but did their tragic fall and remorse ultimately pay for their actions? The answer can be yes and no, and that is the complexity your argument presents that makes it excellent.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePeriod 4 Kylie Guo
ReplyDelete2. Who is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
I think Macbeth is to blame for his transformation from a courageous and loyal soldier to a malicious tyrant. From the beginning, he had put too much stock in the predictions of the weird sisters. Banquo received a prophecy much like Macbeth's, yet the two had totally different reactions. Macbeth becomes immediately changed and obsesses over the predictions, while Banquo, although a bit troubled, sets it aside as something not to meddle with. Thus, from the beginning, the audience sees that Macbeth is secretly extremely ambitious through his immediate focus on the weird sisters. Also, even though Lady Macbeth is ultimately the one to push him over the edge to committing the murders, she could not have done so if not for Macbeth's inner ambition and malice which allowed him to be swayed and convinced so easily. Also, after the initial murder of Duncan, the reader sees that Macbeth has transformed so that killing comes easily. He kills the two servants, and orders the killings of Banquo and Macduff's families without a second thought as opposed to his inner turmoil at Duncan's murder. At this stage in the play, Lady Macbeth is already sick and dead, so her influence can no longer be blamed for his new attitudes. Macbeth had many opportunities to stop his descent into evil, but actively chooses to let it happen, proving that his transformation from honorable general to fearsome tyrant is all his own fault.
Hi Kylie!
DeleteI like how you used Banquo’s unchanged character to support your assertion that Macbeth carries the brunt of the blame. I definitely agree that Macbeth’s downfall was heavily influenced by his preexisting mental instability.
Dylan Shen P.6
Hey Kylie!
DeleteI definitely agree with you about how Macbeth is to blame. He had the choice to stop his downfall and retreat but he chose to allow his greed and ambition to cloud his thoughts. But, I don't think his main motivation was power because he never really mentions in any of his soliloquy or actions that he really wanted to be King. Therefore, I agree with you when you said that Lady Macbeth pushed him over the edge, clearly with HER goal of gaining the throne.
Shawn Xing Period 6
ReplyDelete2. Who is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
This is a tricky question for numerous reasons: On the one hand, one can say that each individual is responsible for his or her own actions (which follows the principle of Kantian ethics or deontology). In that case, Macbeth is to blame. On the other hand, it could be that Lady Macbeth is to blame because she is the one that incited Macbeth. (I lean towards the latter.) While it was, indeed, Macbeth that carried out the murder of King Duncan and his guards, and subsequently Banquo and Macduff’s son and wife, it was actually Lady Macbeth that seeded Macbeth’s killing spree and cajoled him into doing so. When Lady Macbeth finds out about Macbeth’s meeting with the witches, she states that he is too full of “th’ milk of human kindness” and that she must be the one to convince him to kill Duncan. Macbeth could never have been the one to kill Duncan if it were not for Lady Macbeth. Lady Macbeth resolves to be “unsexed” so she can put aside her femininity and be responsible for forthcoming evil deeds. Later, Macbeth decides not to kill Duncan because there is no other reason than his own ambition. Lady Macbeth then calls him a coward and states “when you durst do it… then you were a man.” With his manhood on the line, Macbeth is convinced to kill Duncan.
Hey Shawn!
DeleteI agree your first statement of there being two ways to look at who is to blame. While I had argued that Macbeth should take full responsibility for his actions, I understand Lady Macbeth's role. She was a truly manipulative character and did not seem to have Macbeth's best moral interest at heart.
Hi Shawn.
DeleteI also agree that there are multiple ways to characterize who of the two was the greater that caused the deaths. Although it can be seen both ways, Macbeth being the actual murderer and Lady Macbeth being the enabler, I prefer the latter. But from the actual physical deaths, Macbeth would be the one to take on the consequences.
Hello Justin,
DeleteI think your last statement opens up an incredibly interesting conversation. You and others have stated that Macbeth is to blame because he was physically involved. I agree that those carrying out physical harm should have more of the blame. However, why is it that many people attribute the death of millions during the Holocaust to Hitler? Hitler may have killed people--but not all of them; in fact, most of the death were brought about by the concentration camps and people working for Hitler. So why is it that people are quick to blame Hitler (the person in charge of planning the killings) but it is difficult to decide whether or not Lady Macbeth is to blame?
2. Who is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of the play, Macbeth was a moral man, until the three Witches came along and told him about his fate. That he will rule the kingdom but the Witches didn’t tell him how he would be able to be king, they just told him. This caused him to be joyous and his wife, Lady Macbeth, puts forth the plan and she tells Macbeth what he’s going to do to be the king. Macbeth following his wife’s words becomes a coward and puts moral reasons of why he shouldn’t kill the king but Lady Macbeth nags at him for not being manly and feminine when Macbeth backs down. Lady Macbeth defines man as someone who is not a coward and takes what he wants; that he must charge forward and never slow down. Throughout the first act, Macbeth never clarifies that he is willing to be committed but his wife knows that he will do it anyway. It is her persuasion that a heroic and moral man is the same as a murderer. This hesitation and coward that Macbeth display, shows that he doesn’t have a committed desire to be king, it’s more of Lady Macbeth, who wants the power and to be ‘king’ because she keeps urging Macbeth into the plan and to murder King Duncan.
Nearing to the end of the play, Lady Macbeth is dead but she accomplished changing Macbeth to a ‘real’ man because Macbeth kills to get rid of the evidence. When others aren’t willing to do his dirty work, he uses his wife’s persuasion and calls them unmanly for hesitating. The audience can see how Lady Macbeth has influence her husband into doing immoral action. A puppeteer, Lady Macbeth, was the mastermind in the plan and Macbeth was just the puppet being played.
Hey Susan!
DeleteI do agree that it is, indeed Lady Macbeth's mastermind that made it all happen - from the murder of Duncan, to clearing evidence by killing of the guards. I do believe that in Lady Macbeth provoking her husband by saying he isn't a man, it triggers him to "man - up", and kill Duncan and his guards.
Susan Keath!
DeleteI think you have a great point here in the second paragraph. After Lady Macbeth drives him to murder by declaring him too weak, Macbeth takes this same tactic to push others to commit immoral deeds. Clearly, Lady Macbeth influenced him with these words so significantly that he learns to apply them himself. I agree that Lady Macbeth deserves the blame since she fed him with the evil intentions that prompted him to later have Banquo and Macduff’s family killed.
2. In my opinion, Macbeth is to blame for his transformation of character. That is not to say that he is the only one who holds fault for the murders, but I think that as people, we all have the power to choose who we are. There are factors such as family and experiences that help shape your person and choices, but you always have a CHOICE: who do you YOU want to be? Do you want to be the one who succumbs to the evil around you? Or the one who triumphs above all that evil with your own goodness?
ReplyDeleteWe see inner struggles throughout literature and pop culture:
Huck Finn decides that slavery is wrong despite all that he has been taught.
Caspar has three diabolical uncles but somehow retains his friendly, kindhearted personality.
Harry Potter literally has a piece of evil integrated in his head, yet fights it and saves the world.
Macbeth had a choice. However, he chose evil instead of good. While Lady Macbeth did encourage her husband, Macbeth was ultimately the one who murdered his King. He ponders several perfectly reasons not to kill the king, but it is the sole reason to kill the king (his “vaulting ambition”) that rules his actions. As such, he is responsible for his own actions and therefore his own sinister metamorphosis.
Hey Tiff!
DeleteI really loved how you made comparisons with other works to strength your argument! Indeed, Macbeth is at fault. He was the one who followed through and listened to the devil in his mind. Although he knew what was moral, he completely throws his morality away and succumbs to evil.
Hi Tiffer!
DeleteI also agree with Ella. Your argument is strong in itself with the evidence pulled from the play, but the examples you used with Huck Finn, Caspar, and Harry Potter definitely made it more convincing.
Hello I am Michelle Ly from Period 6 and I am answering Prompt #2.
ReplyDeleteMacBeth is completely at fault for his own actions and to place blame on Lady MacBeth is silly. She may have pushed him to do the deed, but in the end, he had complete control in the final decision. We all know that MacBeth was a huge drama queen and his whole spiel about what would have happened and why he shouldn’t have killed Duncan was rather pointless because, as see near the end of the play, his true nature was that of a cruel murderer. He felt little regret over his actions and had little remorse over the death of his wife. Even if Lady MacBeth didn’t encourage him, he would have done so anyways because he would find any other reason to become king. Why? Because he wanted to be king; it’s as simple as that.
Michelle Huang
DeletePeriod 2
Hi Michelle! I completely agree with you that Macbeth is responsible for his own actions and that any attempts to place the blame on Lady Macbeth is borderline groping in the dark to try to find any sort of reasoning of why Macbeth would not be held accountable for his actions. I do feel like Macbeth would still have gotten the courage to kill King Duncan, but I do not think that the fact that he wanted to be king was as simple as it was. Adding on to the notion of being king, I think Macbeth also wanted to reassert his masculinity to Lady Macbeth and himself because Lady Macbeth had just challenged his manhood earlier. But I mean, being king is great isn't it? That is until right up to the point where people want to kill you for being a tyrant; I find it amusing that his endeavors to be king also resulted in his death. Overall, I like that you offered a simple explanation because people tend to overlook the simplest answers when they could be the key to understanding why a person did what they did.
Michelle Huang
ReplyDeletePeriod 6
Question 2 Response
Macbeth himself is definitely more accountable for his transformation than Lady Macbeth is. In the beginning, Macbeth is a model citizen, and it is true Lady Macbeth sorts of prods his pride to make him kill the King. And still, it is true, that Lady Macbeth was the one who was the one sane enough during the hours after the murder to keep Macbeth from being overly dramatic and instructed him to clean up the mess that he made when he killed King Duncan. But in the end, I believe that everyone is responsible for their own actions. While influence is powerful, a person always has their own free will, and it is clear that Macbeth has a conscience when he is weighing whether or not to kill the King when he states, “this even-handed justice commends the ingredience of poison’d chalice to our own lips” (Macbeth Act 1 Scene 7). Macbeth is perfectly capable of making his own decisions, and his reasoning in the scene is sound, which supports my notion that he always knew what he was doing while he was making his transformation into a paranoid murderer.
Furthermore, Lady Macbeth, at the end of the book, is the person who feels extreme guilt of killing the King which is displayed through her sleep-walking. Lady Macbeth does not really encourage Macbeth to do anything super drastic after the murder; it is Macbeth taking his fate into his own hands and acting as he feels accordingly when he is in his position as king. His transformation, although influenced and semi-incited by Lady Macbeth, is not responsible for his full transformation into a murderer. That was definitely Macbeth himself.
Rachaelle Villa, Period 6
ReplyDeleteWho is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
Although Macbeth is guilty of murder, I believe Lady Macbeth is to blame because she persistently imposed her vicious tactiles to Macbeth and forced him to commit the crime. The beginning of the play revealed Macbeth’s loyalty to the king and his nobility position. However, Lady Macbeth and Macbeth were dissatisfied and chose to disrupt the laws of nature. Lady Macbeth manipulated Macbeth by picking at his manliness and was concerned for her power as Queen. Lady Macbeth was deeply driven because she wanted more power; therefore, if she had the power to control Macbeth, she would also have the strength to obtain the position as Queen. As a result, Lady Macbeth continued to push Macbeth, and ultimately caused him to be the murderer.
Hi Rachaelle! I see where you are coming from, but even though Lady Macbeth was the one that continuously pushed Macbeth to murder King Duncan for power, it was Macbeth himself that succumbed to her temptations and ultimately committed the crime. Prior to the deed, Macbeth listed the consequences of what could happen and ended up deciding to not kill King Duncan, and it was only after Lady Macbeth questioned his manliness and called him a coward did he change his mind -- just from his pride being hurt. In addition, how could Lady Macbeth be responsible for the following murders of Banquo, Lady Macduff, and her son? She did not tell Macbeth to kill them; he decided that himself.
DeleteTina Zhao
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
1. Fate vs Free will: Are the choices and events predicted by the witches predestined by fate, or are they a result of Macbeth’s own free will?
The prophecies of the witches came true the moment Macbeth and Banquo heard them. Since these witches are an allusion to the Sisters of Fate from Greek mythology, it’s assumed that these witches aren’t just oracles that tell prophecy, but actual entities that direct fate. For instance, it’s highly unlikely that Macbeth would have pursued the king’s throne if he had not heard the prophecy. The seed of desire was planted in him the moment he heard “thou shalt be King hereafter!” (Act I, Scene III, line 54-55) and the Thane of Cawdor declaration from the witches was simply meant to convince Macbeth of the prophecy’s truth.
One can argue that Macbeth went on this sinful path out of his own free will, swayed by the witch’s prophecy. However, Banquo who believed the witches’ words were fantastical “in the name of truth” (Act I, Scene III, line 57) had his prophecy come true as well. Banquo did nothing to ensure that his sons would become kings, yet that was what happened. He ended up “lesser than Macbeth, and greater” (Act I, Scene III, line 70), not a king, but not a traitor and “not so happy, but much happier” (Act I, Scene III, line 70), murdered, but dead with a clean slate. Macbeth, although he did have his doubts, was fated to fall into ruin through the presented circumstances orchestrated by fate. His doubts were dashed by the challenge presented by Lady Macbeth. By the time he ascended to king, he was morally corrupt and so involved that he could no longer undo his deeds.
The fate of Scotland was sealed when they entered the heath. All along, the characters had no free will over their actions, despite believing they did.
Hi Tina!
DeleteI found your thoughts to be very interesting. I like how you referenced Greek mythology when discussing the Weird Sisters, and, although I personally believe Macbeth led himself down the path of dishonesty and immorality, I understand how you saw it the other way. Comparing Banquo's predictions to Macbeth's was certainly convincing in supporting your argument that fate was the driving force behind the play!
Hey Tina!
DeleteInitially when I read this question, I thought perhaps free will because after all, it was Macbeth's choice to go towards these malicious actions that led to his downfall. But after reading your post, I found myself agreeing with you. Your thoughts are definitely plausible, and I like how you mentioned that without the prophecy, Macbeth might've not done anything at all and that the Thane of Cawdor title just added on an extra convincing touch that the prophecy is to happen. Your argument was really convincing and changed my perspective!
Hi Tina,
DeleteI really liked how you mentioned that although Banquo got the same prophecies from the Weird Sisters, his came true without any meddling like Macbeth. While thinking about this question of fate vs. free will, I totally forgot about Banquo's part! This definitely complicates the question since Macbeth's actions clearly show the triumph of free will over fate, but Banquo's show the opposite.
Raymond Chang
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
2. Who is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
While Lady Macbeth has poked at Macbeth’s manliness by comparing him to “the poor cat i’ the adage” (Line 49, Act 1, Scene 7) and “a coward” (Line 47, Act 1, Scene 7), I believe Macbeth is more responsible than Lady Macbeth for his transformation since he allowed himself to be influenced by the words of others on these significant matters of life and death. No matter how much Lady Macbeth plays to his pride, Macbeth should have known better to not let the words of his wife affect him so greatly that he murders King Duncan. Furthermore, Macbeth acknowledges his close relationship to King Duncan by describing him as “his kinsman and his subject” (Line 13, Act 1, Scene 7). If anything, this makes Macbeth more at fault because he knows his close ties to King Duncan as Thane of Cawdor, yet he still kills Duncan to fulfill his prophecies of becoming king. Macbeth should have simply ignored Lady Macbeth’s taunting words and continued on with his life as a noble thane instead of becoming a violent and power-hungry tyrant. Therefore, Macbeth is much more at fault than Lady Macbeth due to him succumbing to Lady Macbeth’s words and acknowledgement of his relationship to King Duncan.
Nancy Ye
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
2. Who is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
As to who transformed Macbeth, I think Lady Macbeth is responsible; however that does not mean Macbeth is completely innocent in this case. He does show signs of having a hunger for power at the very beginning when he believes in the witches prophecy and thinks about the idea of being king even before telling Lady Macbeth. In addition, killing the guards, Banquo, Macduff and many more was all from his own actions, this was not ordered by Lady Macbeth. Therefore, Macbeth is still guilty in the crimes he committed but ultimately Lady Macbeth was the one that incited Macbeth to become such a murderer.
Even though he does think about the idea of being king at the beginning, he is completely uninterested in the thought of overtaking Duncan to accomplish this. It is only until Lady Macbeth provokes him and even challenges the idea of whether or not he is a man that causes Macbeth to sway. She is very direct and asks taunting questions as “Art thou afeard” (I. VII. 43). She also questions him as a man, asking if “you were a man” and continues provoking him (I. VII. 55). After these provoking comments, he goes from being indecisive and uninterested to suddenly agreeing in taking part in this plot. Therefore it is evident that Lady Macbeth’s words did have an impact on him.
He is at fault for the other murders that Lady Macbeth did not take part in, but he murders these others because he has already committed a crime to become king; in order to keep his position, he murders as a means of hiding the truth. Therefore, the cause of these actions still stem back to the first murder of Duncan, which brings the blame back to Lady Macbeth for persuading him into committing the crime. I do think that Macbeth definitely has an “evil” side to him; as mentioned earlier, he did show signs of wanting power and he did commit murders from his own accord. However I think Lady Macbeth is the one responsible for ultimately bringing out this side of him, therefore the one responsible for his transformation.
Hi Nancy! I agree with you, Lady Macbeth is responsible for persistently pushing Macbeth, however he did have the growing hunger for power. Because he had already committed one murder, he continued to kill the others for his own benefit. I like your second paragraph, Lady Macbeth was indeed the one to provoke Macbeth even when he was uninterested in overtaking Duncan.
DeleteHello Nancy!
DeleteAlthough you are correct when you state Lady Macbeth impacts Macbeth's actions, I do not think she should be held responsible for his transformation. I believe Lady Macbeth simply brought out what Macbeth truly desired. Before killing Duncan, Macbeth takes it upon his own action to commit murder.
Ellen Cheng P.4
2. Who is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
ReplyDeleteWhile Lady Macbeth does bait Macbeth into committing the murder, ultimately Macbeth is to blame for he is the one who carries the action. Early in the play, Macbeth mentally lists various reasons not to murder Duncan. However, after his wife questions his manliness, he immediately loses resolve and proceeds to kill a man who he has been loyal to for much of his life. To weigh mere manliness over human life could hint that Macbeth may have always had a hidden desire to be king or care deeply about reputation and titles. He further demonstrates this by stating that he now had “golden opinions from...people” that should not be “cast aside so soon” (1.4.38). Rather than arguing about the immorality of killing a saintly king, Macbeth responds with recently gaining admiration from the people, transient and superficial feelings that cannot measure to one’s life. From the very beginning, Macbeth showed signs of being naturally selfish. His wife only gave him a small push.
Hi Jessie!
DeleteI totally agree with your point Macbeth was selfish from the beginning. I would like to challenge that Macbeth didn't even have a transformation because his inner nature was just hidden by his facade as an honorable general.
Who is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
ReplyDeleteI believe that Lady Macbeth takes the brunt of the blame for Duncan's murder since she was the one that goaded Macbeth into committing the murder. While Macbeth did entertain the notion of becoming king, he decided against it since the king as rewarded him handsomely with Glamor, and was a good and just king. It was only after Lady Macbeth insulted Macbeth's manhood which compelled Macbeth to commit the murders in scene one. If Lady Macbeth never backed Macbeth into a corner, the murder would have never occurred. Macbeth also carried more remorse over Duncan's death than his wife ever did. From the very beginning, he regretted his decision in murdering the king, whereas Lady Macbeth began to feel the guilt towards the end of the book when she begins to see the "damned spots". Lady Macbeth never showed conscious remorse for her actions, she only began to sleepwalk and see blood all over her hands. This is not remorse, only guilt. Remorse is the act of feeling understanding the wrongness of your actions whereas guilt is just the feeling of doing something bad, and not as strong. While Macbeth actually killed The king, and indirectly killed many others, this all descends from Lady Macbeth's urging than Macbeth's own heart.
Hey Kevin!
DeleteI like the stance you took since most answers seem to label Macbeth as the culprit. Your differentiation between Lady Macbeth’s feelings of guilt and Macbeth’s remorse makes a good argument. However, I don’t think remorse really absolves Macbeth of any fingers pointed at him. It makes sense if an adolescent or young adult was goaded into doing something bad, but Macbeth is a middle-aged man. I’d expect someone of his age to have some temperance or common sense. I think it was combination of Lady Macbeth’s goading and Macbeth’s insecurity that led him down the wrong path.
Hey Kevin!
DeleteI absolutely agree with your point that Lady Macbeth acted as a stimulus for Macbeth's actions. On the contrary, however, I must disagree with your statement that without Lady Macbeth, Macbeth would have NEVER committed the murder. Adding on to Tina's point, Macbeth is a grown man and is completely capable of handling his own decisions. Lady Macbeth manipulated his emotions so he would proceed with the murder, but were Macbeth truly innocent, he would not have fallen victim to her taunting and would instead have stood firm in his convictions. The fact that he is so easily persuaded to commit such a heinous act suggests that evil has already been implanted in his soul; all Lady Macbeth did was awaken his desire to take action and germinate the seed of ambition.
Hi Kevin.
DeleteI understand the reasons why you considered putting the full blame on Lady Macbeth, as she was the Enabler. But,when taking this into a state of who's the greater of the deaths in a court case, would Macbeth be the only one that takes the consequence for the physical act or would both of them be guilty as well?
2) Who is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
ReplyDeleteI believe that Macbeth is responsible for his own arrogant and murderous actions. Even if Lady Macbeth challenges his manhood and states that only when Macbeth “durst do it, then you were a man” (Lady Macbeth-I. vii. 55), the decision is ultimately up to him. Not to mention he concluded on his own that they “will proceed no further in this business” (Macbeth- I. vii. 34) after outweighing the consequences of murdering such an honorable king. He allowed his wife and his own pride regarding his manhood to overpower his conscience. When he agrees to commit the murder because his wife was calling him out on not being man enough, it already demonstrates early traces of his own arrogance. More than anything, there would be different voices within oneself and even more around us trying to dictate our lives. However, at the end of the day, no one else has to live with your actions but yourself. Just because Lady Macbeth planted those thoughts of murder, it is Macbeth to blame for allowing those seeds to grow into what he has become. Everyone needs to take responsibility for their own actions. That lesson in life takes maturity to comprehend because many times it is easier to place the blame on someone else, such as if Macbeth were to blame Lady Macbeth. However, there is no changing the fact that Macbeth followed through with it. In the same way, in every situation or decision that we face in life, there would be many voices; whether that be your friends or family that try to steer you in the direction they want you to go. Ultimately, it is how you let what other people say affect you and how you take action upon it that will define you. You will always be the only one responsible for your actions and their outcomes.
Hey Hannah!
DeleteI like how you derived a moral lesson from Macbeth's mistakes. We're told to "not compare" or "don't let other people's opinions sway you", but we do it anyways because we don't want to be responsible for our own failures. Despite being a fictional character, Macbeth made a very realistic mistake by giving into his temptations and the expectations of his wife.
Hi Hannah!
DeleteWhile Lady Macbeth definitely incites Macbeth to murder by challenging his manhood, it is ultimately his final call as to how he will react. When he allows outside influences — his wife and societal standards — to sway his decision, perhaps this demonstrates he cares more about how others perceive him than his own initial morals and judgment that had led him to decide he wouldn’t kill Duncan. I also liked how you extracted Macbeth’s situation and related it to scenarios we ourselves might face today.
Breanna Qin Period 6
ReplyDelete2. Who is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
Macbeth wrestles with morality throughout the play, shifting from moral to immoral as the story progresses. When first looking at the scene, it may appear that Lady Macbeth is more to blame, since she pushes Macbeth to follow through on his intentions. She challenges his manhood by asserting that a real man would abide by his word, therefore urging him to murder the king. However, Macbeth is ultimately to blame, since he made the decision to kill the king himself. While Lady Macbeth pushes him to do the deed, Macbeth’s inner arrogance and selfish ambitions are what caused him to resort to murder; she was not the cause for these already innate negative characteristics. If he did not already have these qualities, then he would not face the moral conflict between life and death. In addition, because Macbeth was so easily persuaded by his wife, it demonstrates his moral weakness and illuminates his hidden desires for power. Despite appearing as a “good” and noble man at first, his violent and evil side is later revealed, consequently influencing to act upon his greedy aspirations. His own lack of moral stability as a character is the primary cause of his downfall, since he made his own choices and forced this transformation on himself. Although partially motivated by Lady Macbeth, the only person he can blame is himself.
Hi Breanna! I agree that Macbeth is much more to blame, as it was merely this challenge on his "manhood" that persuaded him into murdering the king. While Macbeth was much more remorseful than his wife toward the beginning, these feelings also faded into a barbaric rule throughout the course of the play.
DeleteHey Brianna, I like how you brought up his "moral weakness," I never thought about that before. Him killing the King does show a that he's weak and selfish. The King just awarded him with the title Thane of Glamis and he in unsatisfied. It shows that he has his own interest in mind before the people.
DeleteSabrina Yip
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
Who is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
Although Lady Macbeth is often seen as the one who transformed him, Macbeth himself is ultimately the one responsible for his own descent into evil. However, there is no dispute of the fact that Lady Macbeth plays a critical role in Macbeth's conversion from soldier to tyrant; from urging him to "[b]e so much more the man" (I.VII.57) to telling him that she would "[dash] the brains out" (I.VII.64) of her child if she promised, Lady Macbeth manipulates the concept of manliness and courage to stimulate Macbeth to take action. Nevertheless, Macbeth was the final decision-maker in whether or not to proceed with the murder of Duncan and other heinous acts.
Moreover,Macbeth soon spirals into a bloodthirsty frenzy as it becomes easier for him to kill his enemies without a second thought. The blame for the decline of his moral code can only be laid on Macbeth, as he is the one who allowed himself to continue on this dark path he knew was immoral. Therefore, despite Lady Macbeth serving as a catalyst for Macbeth's crimes, in the end it is Macbeth who consciously continues descending on the path of tyranny and violence.
Hey Sabrina! I agree with you, Macbeth is responsible for his transition to his tyrant phase, where he descends into evil. After being taunted by Lady Macbeth, not only does he kill Duncan, his declining moral code continues when he kills others.
DeleteHi Sabrina!
DeleteI definitely agree that Lady Macbeth played a critical part in Macbeth's transformation but I also like how you mention that Macbeth is still at fault. I thought that Lady Macbeth was the one responsible, but I also see that Macbeth cannot be completely innocent in this case either.
Hey Sabrina!
DeleteI do not believe that Macbeth was responsible for his actions. While it is true that Macbeth physically killed Duncan, Lady Macbeth was the one that compromised Macbeth's moral code in the first place. Without her insidious whispering, there would of been no reason for Duncan to be killed. Furthermore, it was not easier for Macbeth to kill again, Macbeth actually distanced himself from all the killings because he wanted to distance himself from it and pretend it did not happen. That is why he killed the others by hiring murderers.
Who is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
ReplyDeleteHowever much Lady Macbeth influenced him, Macbeth takes the ultimate blame for his own transition into a ruthless, immoral man. Don’t take me wrong here. Lady Macbeth has catalyzed the murders in this play, easily signified by her constant sleepwalking in the last act to illustrate unrest. However, it is Macbeth, not Lady Macbeth, who makes the final decision. Before Macbeth kills Duncan, he admits he is a trusted kinsmen who is “strong both against the deed...who should against his murderer shut the door” (I. VII. 12-16). Macbeth knows Duncan is a competent king who he should protect and remain loyal to, but decides to agree with Lady Macbeth and feed his avarice anyway. Shakespeare seems to further support this as he sets up a brief scene involving Macbeth’s decision to kill Duncan but invests in multiple acts to portray his moral decline. While Lady Macbeth leads a trail to the dagger, Macbeth himself takes action upon seizing it.
Hey Michelle!
DeleteI agree that Macbeth is the one to blame. Initially, Lady Macbeth encourages her husband to kill, but cannot act upon her own words when she admits King Duncan's face resembles her father. Like his wife, Macbeth could have chosen to not kill Duncan. To further your point, Macbeth also plans the murder of Banquo and Fleance without his wife's knowledge. It is clear, Macbeth's paranoia is as a result of his own emotions.
Ellen Cheng P.4
Hey Michelle! I completely agree that Macbeth is the one to blame. Even though there are several factors, such as the witches, who tempt Macbeth, and Lady Macbeth, who challenges his manhood in order to make sure that he kills King Duncan, it is ultimately Macbeth’s own ambition and desire that causes him to kill Duncan. Furthermore, this action causes Macbeth to lose himself and is not only initially overcome by guilt, but ultimately becomes a savage and paranoid murderer. It was very clever of you to link the back to Shakespeare’s decision to show Macbeth’s moral progression throughout a period of several acts.
DeleteSravani Alla P.6
ReplyDelete3. Good vs. Evil? Is Macbeth a story of good vs. evil, or of complex psychological issues?
Rarely, if ever, can a story be categorized as simply one thing. Macbeth is no exception in that its characters are not definitively and purely “good” or “evil”, but contains underlying factors that rather make it a story of complex psychological issues.
Despite Lady Macbeth’s initial willingness to murder Duncan, her behavior after the deed indicates guilt and likely regret, which develops into post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). She suffers from obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) derived from her PTSD, as demonstrated by her repetitive hand-washing motions that “is an accustomed action with her” (V. i. 25) and could last “a quarter of an hour” (V. i. 27). Those with OCD experience a sense of incompleteness in their actions and Lady Macbeth is unable to stop trying to morally cleanse herself by washing her hands from the blood as her guilt persisted. Depression, also linked to PTSD, may have been what drove Lady Macbeth to commit suicide when she could never rid herself of feeling immoral. Not only that, but King Duncan had “resembled [her] father as he slept” (II.ii.17), perhaps another aspect adding to her guilt as she could be imagining her father murdered.
Macbeth, too, suffers after Duncan’s death. His paranoia schizophrenia had started before, but worsened, after the murder. Macbeth’s hallucinations of a dagger leading him to kill Duncan and of Banquo’s ghost in his chair indicate his condition. He also becomes increasingly anxious and paranoid about others he suspects know about his role in Duncan’s murder. In addition to having Banquo assassinated, Macbeth questions Macduff’s absence from his dinner party and even admits “in his house/I keep a servant fee’d” (III. iv. 163-164), proving his paranoia. Furthermore, Macbeth states the “strange things I have in head...must be acted ere they may be scanned” (III. iv. 171-172). Clearly, Macbeth is not thinking rationally if he wants to act upon ideas without thinking them through. His mind is in a state of disarray as his paranoia schizophrenia grows.
Overall, Macbeth is not simply a story of “good” and “evil” due to psychological issues in the characters, and characters’ moralities and actions become more complex to judge with such elements to consider.
Hey Jacqueline!
DeleteI really like all the examples you gave and I find them very interesting as it gives more of a deeper explanation of each character's actions. I was quick to think of certain characters as evil or good but I do see after looking over it again how there's a complex psychological issue behind it all.
Hi Jacqueline,
DeleteI also chose this topic and I like how you included serious disorders like PTSD and OCD. Although I chose to focus on the more brain/conscious mind, these ideas are relevant. I completely agree that when Macbeth does kill Duncan and Banquo, he immediately feels guilty and this causes him to see ghosts , talk to them, be unable to sleep, and make more irrational decisions. Your last sentence sums it up clearly that whether their actions are good or evil it is hard to judge knowing of their mental instability.
Hi Jacqueline!
DeleteI really enjoyed reading your response. First off, not many people chose to do respond to this prompt, myself included, so it was very nice to see your insight. Your response was also very thorough. I like how you indicate which disorders the characters seem to have. I agree with your points; the characters and plot are multi-dimensional and therefore cannot be fit into simple black and white terms. Analyzing the play with a psychological lens helps us understand the complexity of the characters.
Tiffany Lau
Period 6
Skanda Shastri
ReplyDeletePeriod 6
1. Fate vs. Free Will
Yes some may argue, that the witches' prophecies sealed the fate of Macbeth as they predicted what would happen. When it's all said and done though, Macbeth was the one who commmited the actions that led to everything to unfold. For example, when the witches predict that Banquo's sons will be the heirs to the throne, Macbeth makes the decision to actually go ahead and kill Banquo and go after his sons. Another example is when the prophecy destines for him to become king. Macbeth uses his power to kill King Duncan in order to quicken the process of becoming King. Granted, the witches do kind of plant the idea in his head causing him to take action. Overall though, every event that eventually happens is caused by Macbeth's actions. He everlasting greed for power led him to make decisions that may seem terrible in hindsight. Fate didn't play a part as his free will to become king ultimately overpowered any logic he had. Fate is an easy way to direct blame away from and not actually take crediblity for the events that unfold, good or bad. Shakespeare wants the audience to divert their attention on the madness that Macbeth transcends into through his decisions.
Hi Skanda! I agree with your idea that it was Macbeth's own free will that was responsible for his actions. The Witches never told him what he needed to do in order to become King; he took it upon himself to kill Duncan and have Banquo and the rest murdered. It was his own will that led up to his death, so in this case I think fate plays a very minimal if not no part at all in the occurrences in this play.
DeleteHello Skanda,
DeleteI agree that it's easy to just blame fate, instead of taking responsibility for one's own wrongdoings. However, I would kindly disagree with the way you arrived at your conclusion that "fate didn't play a part." You say that the witches only prophesied that Macbeth would become King--it is Macbeth that uses his free will to take action and kill Duncan. However, here is me playing devil's advocate: It is also possible that, at least in Macbeth's world, there was never any free will to begin with. The witches communicate with Macbeth his fate that has already been pre-determined. Macbeth killing Duncan is only fate fulfilling itself (not something Macbeth had any *real* control over). Even though Macbeth's emotions were driving his murderous deed, fate has already calculated all those emotions and all external factors (such as Lady Macbeth as the impetus) to align in such a way that he would, indeed, kill Duncan and become the King.
Hey Shawn. After writing my post, I thought about my post more and figured out that maybe fate just played a little part in it. Your comment totally justified my doubts about how it possibly could have been fate along. When the witches tell Macbeth the prophecy, maybe Macbeth has the idea that this is his fate. Maybe he acts in response to the fate tha the witches had set out for him. In his eyes, his fate is potentially sealed and he wants to achieve it quickly. There's definetely a case that could be made for the fact that it is actually fate instead of free will. The fate is actually directly told to the person at hand in Macbeth. Imagine if a witch told me that I'd be the president of the student body. I didn't know when, but it would eventually happpen. Depending on how much I want it, I will make an effort to achieve it. Since Macbeth really desires to become as king as quick as possible, he takes the necessary steps to carry out his fate quickly.
DeleteGrace Han
ReplyDeletePeriod 6
Fate vs Free Will
Although the Weird Sisters made prophecies regarding Macbeth’s future, I believe Macbeth acted solely on self-interest and was in no way prompted by “fate.” Ignoring the validity and morality of the Witches’ claims, they simply told Macbeth a possibility that he would be king. It was only Macbeth who interpreted it as meaning Duncan had to die, along with his heirs, and that his death must be purposeful. Macbeth’s greatest downfall was his decision that he must be the one to kill Duncan. While the witches told Macbeth an outcome, it was Macbeth who decided on the steps to achieve it. Along the process, though, Macbeth did recognize real problems that would occur if he were to kill King Duncan, such as him being Duncan’s host, cousin, and subject, but his final decision made solely by himself to go through with it anyway despite the obstacles reveals the falsity in the belief that he had no choice, but was in fact only tempted by the taunting of his manhood. Therefore, all of Macbeth’s actions were not acts of “fate”, but rather, pure self-interest.
Hey Grace I completely agree with everything you have said. Especially after reading the Snyder literary criticism it is clearly seen that the witches simply supplied verbs while Macbeth himself supplied the action. Another example of how free-will is what rules our life comes with Banquo. While he was also given a prophecy of his sons being Kings, he contemplated but did not act of it. He chose to stay a morally good person while Macbeth took the other way out and became a tyrant.
DeleteHey Grace!,
DeleteI also completely agree with your response about the self-interest idea. No one ever has to do something just because they were told - it is mostly reactions to the original idea in order to prove a point.
And Clarence! I love your thoughtfulness in interpreting something that can be so easily overlooked which is the fact that Banquo went on a different path even though he was offered a prophecy just like Macbeth.
You both have great reasoning!
Who's to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
ReplyDeleteWe’ve all heard the saying, (probably from our parents) “If she jumped off a cliff, would you?” Personally, this annoying phrase depicts that every individual holds responsibility for oneself. Meaning I am responsible for any actions I commit, despite any persuasions or interferences committed by anyone else. Paralleling to Macbeth, Macbeth is responsible for all actions he performed in the play, regardless of the many influencing factors, like his wife’s taunting interventions. As much as I want to blame Lady Macbeth for creating such a foul being, it is ultimately Macbeth who takes the blame. Macbeth begins the play as a loyal servant to the King, and is willing to put his life on the line to defend the king and his country, as shown in 1.2, “Till he faced the slave;/ Which ne’er shook hands nor bade farewell to him/ Till he unseamed him from the nave to the chops/ And fixed his head upon battlements” (1.2.23). As the play progresses and tensions rise, Macbeth isn't strong enough to prevent Lady Macbeth from prevailing him into becoming what she sees as “much more than a man” (by murdering Duncan), when deep down Macbeth knows he will become a paranoid traitor (1.7.57). Throughout the play, Lady Macbeth in no way physically forces Macbeth to murder the king, nor does she force him to do anything else; she is merely a pressuring, tempting factor that, as her husband, Macbeth must listen, but not succumb to. Even with his wife’s evil means of strategical persuasion, Macbeth is fully responsible for his transformation in the play, as his willpower and loyalty should have outweighed the egotistical benefits of murdering King Duncan.
DeleteHi Sophia!
You brought up an interesting idea that we should only evaluate the concrete actions when attributing blame. In my response, I considered how much influence Lady Macbeth imposed on Macbeth that drove him to murder Duncan in his sleep. We generally believe that someone should not be faulted for a crime if he had little say in his decision (which may occur in a life-threatening situation.) Of course, that is not the case here. But would that be vastly different if he had more but still limited control over that choice? Your post argues well on this point, saying how little Lady Macbeth’s words should affect him. I personally think, however, that those words that drew out his evil nature and devised an elaborate scheme did hold a lot of weight. On a final note, I liked the way you began with the quote; that saying certainly is relatable, making your view especially compelling.
Hey Sophia!!
DeleteI like how you tied Macbeth's crimes to the idea of jumping off a cliff. Yet mob mentality/ pure pressure is undeniably existent, and makes people do things in groups they wouldn't even think about doing individually. While it is true that Macbeth did have control of his own body/actions and that Lady Macbeth never did anything "physical", I disagree with you in the sense that I don't think he had control over his mind. With the witches prophecies in the back of his head, and his pride, dignity, and respect from his wife on the line, I think it is totally explainable how he went crazy and was unable to control himself. Thus, in my opinion, Lady Macbeth should be to blame due to the psychological influence she had on an already frizzled Macbeth rather than the physical influence that you address in your response.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEllen Cheng P.1
ReplyDelete2. Who is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
It is true, Lady Macbeth instigates her husband’s dark desires. However, Macbeth is to blame for his own transformation just as Lady Macbeth caused her own misfortune after the murders. After the murder, Macbeth is filled with remorse, crying “Will all great Neptune’s ocean wash away this blood/ Clean from my hand?” (II.ii.78-79). In response, Lady Macbeth tries to remove the guilt from Macbeth with her calmness stating, “A little water clears us of this deed” (II. ii. 85). Likewise, when apparitions appear, Lady Macbeth gives her husband a reality check, reminding him of his responsibilities as king. Despite Lady Macbeth’s attempts at calming her husband, Macbeth still feels guilty and paranoid. Lady Macbeth should not be blamed for causing her husband’s own feelings of grief. Even though she questions Macbeth’s manhood, Macbeth is to blame for his pride. He chooses to project an arrogant personality to keep his dignity and hide him from his crimes. Although Lady Macbeth influences her husband, Macbeth should be blamed for his own transformation.
oops I meant P.4 !!
DeleteHi Ellen! I agree that Lady Macbeth should not be blamed for making her husband feel bad - he is the evil one in this situation; she only suggested the idea, he is the one who carried out the actions. I like your take on how it is due to his pride - I didn't think about that. However, I feel that Lady Macbeth contributed to that ego as she fed him with more and more ideas to retain power.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe tale of Macbeth consists of many deeper psychological themes that lie beneath the simple good vs. evil theme. We have to keep in mind, that the "evil" deed of the play was carried out in the very beginning of the play. Duncan is killed early on, and the rest of the play is a deeper analysis of Macbeth's thoughts. The witches, Lady Macbeth, Banquo and other characters do not serve as good or evil entities, rather they exist to put psychological stress on Macbeth. The witch's prophecies do not directly link to evil, yet they strike fear into Macbeth, and cause him to commit the crimes he does. His post-murder question "Will all great Neptune’s ocean wash this blood clean from my hand?" (Act 2 Scene 2) goes to show the overwhelming amount of guilt on his hands, and reveals the terrible psychological effects the murder had on him. Similarly, Lady Macbeth does not act out of evil, rather she is acting out of impulse and tries her best to leave behind the memories of the murder. She speaks guilt-free to Macbeth, telling him "my hands are as red as yours, but I would be ashamed if my heart were as pale and weak." (Act 2 Scene 2), yet seeing how she kills herself out of guilt and paranoia, it is clear that she is not inherently evil. Characters such as Banquo or Malcolm, exist as a "knocking" which constantly reminds Macbeth of his inevitable fate predicted by the witches. Overall, the majority of the play is a deep look inside the mind of Macbeth and how he psychologically approaches each stage of the prophecy before his inevitable death.
ReplyDeleteHi Michael!
DeleteI thought your point that Lady Macbeth's suicide illustrates, or at least suggests, that she is not inherently evil very interesting. Does that mean a serial killer who takes his own life out of guilt is not inherently evil? Do a few moments of repentance make up for the tragic sin of murder? Are guilt and evil mutually exclusive? However, I do agree that Macbeth's morality is muddled by his psychological issues after killing Duncan, making the play much more than a clear cut good vs. evil.
Hey Michael!
DeleteI like your perspective on the play and the topic of good vs evil in general! I hadn't thought of good and evil as being psychological manifestations of the guilty mind.
I also like how you painted Lady Macbeth; I didn't even think of her as someone trying to forget the memory of killing Duncan, I assumed she was a power hungry psychopath willing to do whatever it took to get her husband to the throne.
You brought up some really good points and I could definitely see your perspective in an analytical essay or a class discussion.
Hi Michael,
DeleteI enjoyed reading your response, and I agree that Shakespeare explores the psychological effects of murder in Macbeth. However, I think that the Weird Sisters' action of giving Macbeth the prophecy is definitely evil because they intended to bring Macbeth to ruin. Although they didn't actively commit murder, they assisted Macbeth in overcoming his inhibitions and, therefore, assisted in the crime.
Sravani Alla Period 6
ReplyDeleteWho is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
As the play opens, Macbeth is introduced not only as a noble servant to the king, but also a highly decorated soldier who is returning from battle in high regard. However, after hearing the witches’ prophecy and listening to his wife’s prodding of him to take the crown for himself. He is unable to control his desires and decides to take the life of Duncan and thereby fulfill the prophecy. While he does counter Lady MacBeth’s temptation, he goes through a series of contradictory emotions and thoughts. He contemplates the killing of Duncan and recalls him to be an honest and truthful king, and how killing him would affect his life and God’s view of him. However, Macbeth is overcome by his desire to have power and decides that “I have no spur To prick the sides of my intent, but only Vaulting ambition, which o'erleaps itself And falls on th' other”. This reflects his initial desire to be an honorable servant, and his inability to resist the temptations. Therefore, Macbeth allows himself to be sucked into world of greed and temptation which not only results in many innocents’ deaths, but ultimately the loss of his sanity, his wife and then, his life.
Hi Sravani, I addressed this same question and I also thought Macbeth is to blame for his doomed transformation. I really enjoyed your example for how it's his own desire and ambition that deeply causes him to change and I think that specific quote really encompasses your argument, so good job on finding that! I also liked how you pointed out Macbeth's "good side",the counter argument, which makes your argument stronger altogether.
DeleteHey Sravani!
DeleteI like how you describe Macbeth's internal state of turmoil to emphasize how he chooses evil over good. I also answered this question, and I agree with how you pointed out that the decision to embark on this dark path was ultimately Macbeth's. The analysis of the quote really strengthened your argument, as well as the progression of Macbeth from loyal servant to unstable tyrant.
2. Who is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
ReplyDeleteAt the beginning of “Macbeth”, we are told of how valiant and honorable Macbeth has been, so when Lady Macbeth is introduced as the coordinator of the brutal act against King Duncan, it is easy to blame her. She exploits his biggest insecurities (especially his large ego) in order to make him think being king is worth the disruption it will cause to the kingdom. Lady Macbeth is set up as a scapegoat and the classic dark lady of Shakespeare’s work is thus woven into the story; and without further analysis, Macbeth looks like nothing more than a victim to his wife’s dedication to power. On the other hand, I hold onto the idea that anyone with a strong enough willpower and morality would have resisted the manipulation and gone with their gut. We hear so much about his bravery and manliness but it is a very small minded man who chooses to forfeit his ideals and abandon loyalty to such a respected king. Macbeth ignored his initial instinct, which would have been to protect his leader above his selfish ambition. For him, it is easy to kill an enemy in the battlefield and still feel honorable afterwards. He did not anticipate what power his conscience would hold over him after doing the same deed because this was the first time he was held accountable for it. With this in mind, it is important to remember that while we have thousands of thoughts in a day, some good and some bad, our actions belong solely to us. A strong person will resist caving into temptations and a weak person will blame them on others.
Hi Rosalind (ROZ),
DeleteYES!I agree that Lady Macbeth exploits his manliness and belittles her husband into thinking that killing Duncan was worth the disruption. Ironically, if Macbeth were really a man, he would have thought more rationally and remained loyal to his ruler. I also agree with the fact that it was not so much the actions that bothered him, but the "power of his conscience" would indeed influence his future deeds. Your last sentence is very true and if you think about it, Lady Macbeth could be considered initially strong because she had the audacity to coerce her husband into killing the king. Macbeth was the weak one who gave into her charm and is burdened with the blame.
Aye Chan Moe
ReplyDeletePeriod 6
2. Who is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
In a black and white world of ‘blame,’ both Macbeth and Lady Macbeth clearly deserve scorn from the audience for the roles - either implicit or explicit - that they play in Duncan’s murder. Nonetheless, when making a comparison in the specific context of Macbeth’s transformation, it is essential to analyse the motivations and guilt they experience before and after the murder, to fully comprehend the extent to which the responsibility falls upon each instigator.
Lady Macbeth may have manipulated her husband’s sensibilities, but the desire has always been present within Macbeth, for he indeed “wouldst not play false/ And yet wouldst wrongly win.” In other words, his conscience has already been tainted by his fervent ambition - he just fears the deed necessary to accomplish his goal. Here, Lady Macbeth presents herself as the opportune push for Macbeth’s action from inaction, resolute, ruthless and rational all the while.
And yet, way down their respective paths, Lady Macbeth seems to be in deep psychological suffering, reliving Duncan’s murder night after night and “washing her hands” clean of blood and associated guilt, while Macbeth does not even blink in overseeing the expediency of Banquo’s “soul’s flight,” that “[i]f it find heaven, must find it out to-night.” This further adds another dimension to the question of how repentance comes into play in a person’s culpability.
With these factors in consideration, it is clear that Lady Macbeth has only awakened the inherent tyrannical nature of Macbeth, under the assumption that her morality (as a measure of conscience) is relatively higher up on the spectrum than her husband’s. There is no doubt that if not for her influence, the aforementioned transformation would have occurred all the same - albeit under a different circumstance.
Hi Aye,
DeleteI completely agree with you that while both lady Macbeth and Macbeth are at fault, the decision is ultimately Macbeth's. It's interesting to consider how Lady Macbeth acted after Duncan's murder, even though she wasn't directly responsible for it.
Katie Huang P.6
ReplyDeleteFate vs. Free Will
The events are predestined by fate, but it was this belief that ultimately caused Macbeth to carry out his actions. The situation could have progressed either way, but because Macbeth believed the prophecy over his own original intent, it came true. In a sense, this was the witches’ plans the whole time, but the falter initially demonstrated by Macbeth conveys that he might have had the willpower to defy fate. His struggle between free will and fate was essentially parallelled through what was morally correct and his desire for power. Macbeth seriously considered against killing King Duncan - a representation of his free will to do what he felt right, but turning to Lady Macbeth and the witches, who were on fates side, he ultimately chose to follow his path in obtaining absolute power. This battle between fate and free will was a close one, and though Macbeth provides the potential to let his own conscience determine his life, fate once again proves to be the determining power - leading to his success and failure.
Hi Katie!
DeleteI agree with your point that though the events are fated, Macbeth’s actions to ensure these events rely on his own willpower. Although, it would be interesting to argue that Macbeth may have become king somehow anyway if he hadn’t murdered Duncan, which would have truly tested fate to see if he was indeed meant to be king.
At the start of the play, the spark that lights the fire begins with Lady Macbeth. She is the one who convinces Macbeth to kill King Duncan in the first place, not Macbeth himself. In fact, Macbeth tells himself, upon hearing the witches’ prophecy, to stop his murderous intentions. He states that there are consequences , and that “[teaching] bloody instructions return to plague the inventor.” Furthermore, Macbeth thinks logically and realizes that he should be loyal to King Duncan, since he is “his kinsman and his subject.” Thus, Macbeth is not to blame for his own transformation, for all along, he had the right intentions.
ReplyDeleteThe person that is to be blamed, therefore, is Lady Macbeth. She, being the one with murderous intent in the first place, ultimately manipulates Macbeth in killing King Duncan and causes him to travel a downward spiral from here on out. To accomplish her goal, Lady Macbeth taunts him as a coward, questioning if “thou afeard to be the same in thine own act and valor as thou art in desire.” Indirectly calling him unmanly, Lady Macbeth puts his husband in an uncomfortable situation, in which Macbeth has to admit his humane, yet less aggressive attitude, or take the initiative to kill King Duncan and show his “manliness.” Thus, in short, Lady Macbeth prompts Macbeth to consider the idea of doing murderous deeds, and if it weren’t for her manipulation, Macbeth would have never changed his gut feeling after hearing the Witches’ prophecy--that is, to never kill King Duncan in the first place; it simply isn’t worth the consequences.
Forgot to put the question I'm answering: "Who is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?"
DeleteHi Sammy,
DeleteI think you make a good point with highlighting how Lady Macbeth is ultimately the one who convinces Macbeth to murder Duncan so she is at fault, but what about all the subsequent murders? By the time Macbeth orders the killings of Banquo and Macduff, Lady Macbeth is sick and later dead. Her influence maybe played a part in the initial push, but afterwards Macbeth had many opportunities to stop but actively chose not to. I agree with you that Lady Macbeth should take some of the blame, but I think Macbeth isn't totally innocent.
Hi Sammy! I agree with your point that Lady Macbeth had some part to the disaster in Macbeth. However, I believe that ultimately Macbeth is at fault since he easily gives in to murdering Duncan. Instead of carefully considering whether manliness could actually weigh more than human life, Macbeth proceeds with the murder due to his own desire to be king. As Kylie states, after his wife’s death, Macbeth continues his killing spree, revealing that his own desires were the main driving force for his actions.
DeleteKylie,
DeleteYou do bring up an interesting point about Macbeth’s involvement in his own transformation, since by your logic, Lady Macbeth was only responsible for the “initial push” of what is to come. However, I still stand my ground, as I will argue that after the events of King Duncan’s death, Macbeth is in no condition to think clearly, since he has lost his mind over his guilt-ridden actions. At the moment he realizes he has killed Duncan, Macbeth goes to the point where he cannot forgive himself, and so, in order to escape his problems of guilt and give himself motivation to live on, he suppresses his own morality and continues his murderous deeds. In short, Lady Macbeth, indeed, gives Macbeth his “initial push,” but ultimately gives him no hope of improving himself, for he has lost his mind and is unable to distinguish the difference between what is right and wrong. Thus, it does not matter how cutthroat his subsequent murders are, I say Lady Macbeth is still to blame for Macbeth’s transformation in its entirety.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteJessie,
DeleteAfter reading your comment about Macbeth’s submissiveness to Lady Macbeth, I wholeheartedly have to agree that Macbeth does take part of the blame of his transformation. Not even giving a second to think about his own morals, Macbeth does make the initial mistake of submitting so easily to his wife and causing this mess in the first place. But as I have said above, after the killing of Duncan, Macbeth is in no condition to think clearly, for he has lost his mind and is unable to distinguish the difference between what is right and wrong. As a result, he continues to commit murderous deeds as a way to not only escape his problems of guilt, but also suppress his own morality.
To make things clear, what Kylie has said is somewhat untrue. By the time Macbeth orders the killing of Banquo and Macduff, Lady Macbeth is not “sick and later dead.” In fact, when Macbeth orders the killing of Banquo, Lady Macbeth is healthy and aware of the murderous deeds she has committed. This period of time that I speak of is during Macbeth’s feast with his noblemen, in which he is talking with Banquo’s ghost, while Lady Macbeth, who still has the motivation to hide their secret, tells him to hush up. As for during the time when Macbeth orders Macduff’s death, which happens after he speaks with the Witches in Act 4 Scene 1, it is unknown whether Lady Macbeth, at the time, is sick and has influenced Macbeth in some way, while it is obviously confirmed that she is not dead. It is until we found out after the feast with the noblemen, in Act 5 Scene 1 to be specific, that she is sick--in the mind, of course--and decides to commit suicide. Thus, from everything I have said, Kylie, I believe what you meant to say is that by the time “Birnam Wood has come to Dunsinane,” Lady Macbeth is sick and later dead, which makes more sense considering the play’s chronological outline. Then, from this point on, this statement could be used to argue for Lady Macbeth’s “somewhat initial”--since she was still trying to make Macbeth hide their secret in Act 3 and all--influence in Macbeth’s transformation and can be later used to prove Macbeth’s immoral behavior for continuing his conquest for blood and the war with England, despite Lady Macbeth’s tragic death and her discontinuance with Macbeth of committing murder.
But this is all nick-picky nonsense I am blabbering out of my mouth. I got too carried away with Shakespeare and this blog, in that I am willing to spend an hour correcting someone who probably does not care whether they made a slight mistake in his or her word choice or interpretation of the play. And so, I apologize for my nerdiness. I have no life.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWho is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
ReplyDelete- I would say Macbeth is the one to blame because instead of doing what he would have done otherwise, he let the expectations of others and his ego control his actions. He was a follower not a leader, that's why he was such a good and noble dude being promoted to a higher position at the beginning. He was good at doing what he was told to do. So, when his wife gets caught up with the idea of her husband becoming king and convinces him to take the actions “necessary” to be the king, it's his own fault that he chooses to listen to her. You're obviously weak if you let someone convince you that you are weak and that you have to do things in order to prove that you aren’t. He was never leader material, if you will, like it may have seemed at the beginning. He just did what he was told which is why he seemed to be a strong noble dude. It is his own fault that he chose to do as his wife instructed of him simply because he was worried about looking cowardly. I would say Lady Macbeth is just as terrible as him, if not worse, but he could have easily stood up for himself and put an end to all of her plotting and evilness by simply saying no.
(excuse my use of "dude" and other informal language)
Hey Holly! I answered the same question as you did, but I like the point you made about Macbeth being a follower than a leader. Maybe that was why he was so easily swayed by the opinions of others. It is also interesting that you point out his weakness as he tries to prove the opposite. The fact that he allowed his wife to manipulate him does not demonstrate his manhood, but rather his weakness.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWho is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
ReplyDeleteAlthough many would blame Lady Macbeth for all of Macbeth’s murderous acts, Macbeth is ultimately at fault because he committed those murders off his own free will. In the beginning of the play, he is portrayed as a brave and noble man with a good heart; however when the three witches appear and tell Banquo and Macbeth their prophecies, Macbeth begins obsessing over what they said while Banquo just sets it aside and continues living his life. This reveals a hidden greed and ambition in him because Macbeth kept trying to find a way to ensure their predictions will be fulfilled even though they were coming true already without him needing to do anything. Despite the fact that it was Lady Macbeth that eventually convinced Macbeth to kill King Duncan, he could not have agreed to do such an immoral act without being filled with immoral feelings of selfishness and longing for power himself. In addition, Macbeth rids himself of his morals so easily when Lady Macbeth justs hurts his pride a little by questioning if “[he] we a man” (I. VII. 55). This frivolous insult provoked him so effortlessly into losing his loyalty to his longtime friend, this further portraying his concealed desire for power. Lady Macbeth was the one that brought the idea of murder into the picture, but it was Macbeth himself allowed himself to be swayed by her provocative words and followed through with the evil deed. As human beings, we have to the power to define who we are and thus, have to be responsible for our own actions.
Hi Klaire,
DeleteI like how you justify Macbeth's responsibility by bringing up in sane self from the early parts of the play. But can't we tie this murder to what's going on in the U.S. currently? Many people who murder others aren't given capital punishment or as severe punishments simply because they were "mentally unstable" at the time of the crime. I believe that Macbeth isn't at fault because of his mental instability at the time of the murder. While you bring up good points on how he started off as a brave noble man, the witches and Lady Macbeth's remarks of "nouns and verbs" drive Macbeth to insanity. So, while I think you bring up good points on how Macbeth had control over his body physically, I have to disagree with your claim on how he is at fault since I believe he suffered from mental instability.
Hi Klaire,
DeleteI really like your justification on where the blame should be placed. I personally believe Lady Macbeth was more to blame, but you bring up a very valid point in that Macbeth ultimately made the decision to kill Duncan. I can understand how Macbeth could hold more of the blame, as he allowed himself to be swayed, and again, made the final choice of murder. I still hold my belief that Lady Macbeth should be blamed, as she had no business in Macbeth's political matters and should have been a "good wife" by supporting him in all of his endeavors rather than pushing him into serious decisions against his will.
Sarah Troescher - Period 4
ReplyDeleteGood vs. Evil (aka the not-popular topic #3)
My initial reaction after reading Macbeth: one of the most wonderful tragedies! (oxymoron??) Progressing throughout the play, it seems that a classic Good vs. Evil plot is unraveled, but if you delve deeper into the play, there might be signs of complex psychological factors. Consider the following:
Specimen 1: After being told of his prophecy of “Hail, King that shalt be” (1.5.9), Macbeth writes to his Lady, as is natural and healthy in a relationship. She takes it to the next level by taking matters into her own hands, convinced that the only way to become king was to kill King Duncan. Macbeth is at odds with himself: SHOULD I KILL THE LEADER WHO HAS DONE NOTHING BUT PRAISE ME? Yes. Because my wife said so and she said I was a coward. This is a more complex form of “peer pressure” and a struggle between the superego and the id while the ego strains to find compromise between the two. The human naturally wants more power and our morality has us choose life, thus suggesting that maybe, just maybe, this could all be the power of the id and not necessarily an evil force.
Specimen 2: Put yourself in the I-have-just-killed-someone-and-I’m-going-to-get-away-with-it-but I’m-probably-not going-to-so-what-do-I-do mindset. Would you be able to even think clearly? No, so how can Macbeth’s mind make sense of what choice is most moral? He is so disoriented because of the lack of sleep (8 hours a night, kids) and the situation at hand, that he no longer considers the lives of the ones he kills and “justifies his actions by the perceived misdeeds of the VICTIM” (Snyder). He admits, “I have no spur/ To prick the sides of my intent, but only/ Vaulting ambition” (1.7.25-27). What is the ambition? To become king. Macbeth also is so traumatized, that the ghost of the “dead” Banquo comes to haunt and remind him of the lives he did take for this ambition.
Also to note, Lady Macbeth was convinced that the deed could be simply washed away with water and that any further thought on the matter would make them mad. Who turned out mad? Lady Macbeth would sleep walk and took unconscious blame for the murder; the brain can only suppress the guilt for so long, leading to severe forms of anxiety, which turned out suicidal.
Yes, it can a Good vs. Evil battle, but if you think about it, where do good and evil deeds derive from? They come from the inner chambers of the human mind, a psychological puzzle of drive and emotion.
Hi Sarah!
DeleteAlthough I didn't respond to this topic, I found what you wrote to be very interesting. Your analysis of the deeper psychological issues both Macbeth and Lady Macbeth face was insightful and introduced me to new ideas. I personally do not think that any character would fit a single title of good or evil. Especially after reading Snyder's essay on the complexity of Macbeth, I do agree that this wonderful tragedy - as you said - goes far beyond the basic tale of Good vs Evil.
Hey Sarah! I agree with your points and like how you took the psychological side of it. In psychology we have learned that our brain does not like to experience pain so it would rather repress those thoughts than face it. However, those supressed thoughts will come to surface as seen through the dreams of Lady Macbeth. A lot of Macbeth's issues can go deeper than just ambition and moral ethics, but rather if there were a lot psychological factors involved that we may not ultimately understand.
DeleteHi Sarah!
DeleteYour approach to the question was interesting, and I agree with your thoughts on the moral ambiguity of Macbeth. I can also attest to being unable to think clearly or make good decisions when I lack sleep, become overly stressed, and feel intense emotions. By having all of these components at once, Macbeth's later actions may not have been done consciously, but more by impulse.
Danna Xue Period 6
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Weird Sisters' role simply represents any person's subconscious thoughts or desires. Therefore, I do not believe the Witches are a symbol of fate, but rather of motivation influencing free will.
After reading Snyder's essay in class today, I started to interpret everything under a different light. As discussed in the essay, the witches simply supply nouns when they predict Macbeth's future. The Witches' use of nouns, such as that of the woods, rather than verbs is a defining factor of their role. Because they are not explicitly telling Macbeth that he is going to commit a certain action, they are simply reminding him of possible outcomes.
For example, if you tell your friend that you put a jar of freshly baked cinnamon cookies in the cabinet, and that you will not return until the evening, you are not directly telling your friend to pilfer from your pantry. Rather, you are simply supplying him with a noun that may later affect his decisions.
Every day, we encounter new situations and face new challenges. Naturally, we begin to predict and formulate our options to prepare for what lies ahead. When we know a certain goal is attainable, we begin to evaluate our surroundings in a different way. In the process, many fall victim to confirmation bias- in which people faultily perceive events as favoring or hinting toward a certain outcome. This behavior is evident in Macbeth when the “prophecies” begin to fulfill themselves; he later uses this a motivation for carrying out Duncan’s murder. Without the Weird Sisters, could these events still have happened? If Macbeth was motivated by nothing but his “vaulting ambition,” anything could have influenced him and led him to his current state. I believe it is not fate that led him there, but rather free will.
Hi Danna!
DeleteI love how you incorporated Snyder's interpretation into your response and I agree that she had a huge impact on my perspective of the play as well. Because of how the Weird Sisters crafted their prophecies, I agree with you their words influenced Macbeth's choices. I found it interesting that you placed the Witches also as fate and although I personally believe that the Witches and fate play separate roles, I definitely can see where you are coming from! I concur that if the Weird Sisters hadn't placed thoughts into Macbeth that initiated the action of this whole play, Macbeth might have not murdered Duncan. Very thought-provoking response!
Hey Danna!!
DeleteI completely agree with your opinion on every day life and the aspect of how we incorporate our surroundings to adjust to them in order to prepare for the things that lie ahead of us. Although I had a different perspective prior from reading your comment, your analysis convinced me to believe that it really was Macbeth who was responsible for everything that happened to him, and that fate was not as strong as his motives.
Hi Danna! I agree with what you said and how it is up to the Macbeth to interpret what the Three Witches prophesied, thus his actions were a result from his own free will. In the beginning, when the Three Witches predicted both Banquo and Macbeth's future, only Macbeth obsessed over it, thinking he needed to take some action, while Banquo acknowledged what they said but just set the prophecy aside and continued living his life. Their words probably influenced Macbeth's future actions such as the killing of King Duncan because if he had not learned that he would be king one day, then he probably would not have been as ambitious. Like you said, people predict and formulate goals for the future, and being king seemed like a very tangible possibility after 2/3 of the predictions came true, so he began to plan to become king and took some measures to ensure that it would happen with his own free will.
DeleteWho is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
ReplyDeleteI believe that Macbeth is to blame for it because it was his conscious decision to kill the king and his friends. Macbeth could have stopped at any point, but his selfish greed caused him to go on a rampage. Although people blame Lady Macbeth for forcing Macbeth into killing Duncan, Lady Macbeth would never have forced him if he did not bring up the subject. Macbeth told Lady Macbeth about his evil intentions and what the witches predicted, which started her own scheming. Lady Macbeth would have never forced Macbeth into killing the king, if Macbeth never had the intention to do it. Although Macbeth had second thoughts about killing the king, he killed his friends and others without feeling any remorse. Overall the things that Macbeth did lead up to his transformation into a paranoid killer. His desire to be king clouded his moral judgment, and so he had to suffer the consequences that came after.
Grace Han P6
DeleteHi Ryan! I liked how you brought up how it was Macbeth's own desire to fulfill the prophecy because he was the one to bring it up with Lady Macbeth. She was simply being "supportive", in a way, by giving her husband the push he needed. However, it may also be true that as the story progresses, Macbeth's desire to rule dwindles and is taken over by Lady Macbeth's own selfish interests, but like you, I still believe Macbeth is truly the one to blame here for being Lady Macbeth's catalysts since it all started when he shared the prophecy and igniting his wife's drive and also because once the initial fear passed, killing to him became natural and almost necessary.
Hi Grace, I agree with your opinion on Lady Macbeth as the story progresses. Later in the story, it does seem like Lady Macbeth is the one who is to blame since she uses Macbeth to gain her own desires. She calls him names and insults him in order to make him do as she wants. Yes she is to blame, but I think that it all started because of Macbeth's interpretation to the witches prophecy.
DeleteKelsea Jeon, Period 6
ReplyDeleteWho is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
It seems that at the end of Macbeth, Macbeth is almost unrecognizable-- he transforms from a noble hero to an arrogant, greedy murderer. Yet, this transformation is not foreign; Macbeth is, by nature, evil. Although Lady Macbeth’s suading words may have served as the impetus to pressure Macbeth into murdering Duncan, it is his own self who is fundamentally responsible for his exposing his true self, or for his “transformation.” Upon hearing the Witches’ prophecy, he remarks, “If chance will have me King, why, chance may crown me, Without my stir,” thus demonstrating his natural desire for power (1.3. 158-160). It is this prophecy that instills in him the possibility of becoming King, so when Lady Macbeth encourages his plan of murdering Duncan and taking the throne, he uses this as justification for committing heinous acts for self-advancement. While Lady Macbeth ridicules Macbeth and accuses him of being a coward, he retorts that he dares to “do all that may become a man” because whoever “dares to do more is none” (1.7. 51-52.). However, this is merely Macbeth attempting convince himself of his virtue and morality, as he shortly contradicts his assertions by murdering King Duncan. Macbeth creates a facade that he is a virtuous man of good moral character; however, his inner greed for power is revealed in his acceptance of and action taken based on the witches’ initial premonitions. It seems as though Macbeth underwent a drastic transformation during the span of the play’s five acts, however, his haughty, greedy nature is an essential part of his identity that was apparent the entire time; it was only further revealed with the aid of Lady Macbeth and the witches.
Hi Kelsea!
DeleteI like how you centered your argument around Macbeth's fundamental nature. I also felt the same vibe from Macbeth throughout the whole play, and I totally agree with how he uses Lady Macbeth's encouragement as validation for his act. To put it simply, he is evil and cowardly.
Kelsea, I totally agree with you that Macbeth holds the most responsibility for the murder. Lady Macbeth does indeed only help him through the process; she influences him, but it is Macbeth himself that eventually who commits the murder. Everybody has the potential to do harm- and all Lady Macbeth did was provoke Macbeth's potential.
DeleteHey Kelsea! I completely agree with you that Macbeth is to blame because he inherently has such negative qualities. While I do believe that Lady Macbeth played a dominant role in unearthing these greedy characteristics, he would not have had a transformation if this selfish ambition was not already programmed within him. Ultimately he choses evil and his weakness is revealed because he was so easily persuaded by Lady Macbeth.
Delete2. Who is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
ReplyDeleteI believe that Lady Macbeth is to blame for this unfortunate turn of events. It was Macbeth who did the actual murdering but in the beginning he didn't want to and almost backed out of this whole situation. Lady Macbeth went ahead and questioned his manly hood to just crush his self esteem so of course he is going to want to prove to her that she is wrong, he even gets a crown for it. He doesn't feel right after the deed is done and in the end the ghost are running around in his brain. Lady Macbeth seems to be the most sane and if she thinks that killing someone makes you a true man clearly her intentions are in all the wrong places. By sleep walking her subconscious knows that she has blood on her hands as well but ultimately I feel like she is putting all the blame on Macbeth when she should really be accusing the face in the mirror.
Hey Julia! You made a very interesting point about Lady Macbeth's lack of conscious. I think it is her subconscious that holds moral values rather than her own personality, as shown through the sleep walking episode.
DeleteHi Julia! I agree with your idea that Lady Macbeth lacks a conscience and it is because of this that she is able to come up with such awful ideas for Macbeth. However, I feel that she does not put the blame on Macbeth. That's why she walks around: she is trying to cope with her actions and bottles up all of her emotions. I like your take on it though!
DeleteHey Nadia, I totally agree with you on how Lady Macbeth does feel guilty for her action. Maybe blame wasn't the right word to use, she has realized what has happened and is ready for whatever consequence awaits her but I feel that if anything extreme happens she will always have the thought in the back of her that "what if Macbeth hadn't killed the king."
Delete3.) Good v.s. Evil?
ReplyDeleteA large majority of the plot throughout this play is sculpted by the theme of "good v.s. evil." In the beginning, Macbeth appears to be an extremely brave and loyal character who shows love for his country and stands by it-- willing to fight for and stand by its people. The character Duncan is represented as a righteous king who displays love and affection towards all of his people; after Macbeth is told by the three witches that he is soon to be king, he murders Duncan, exposing Macbeth's evil intentions.
When Macbeth exhibits a desire to return towards the "good" path, Lady Macbeth shuns him, tagging him as a coward and fool. Although Macbeth may have started the play as an idolized hero, he stumbles upon the depths of evil and does whatever it takes to gain power, ignorant of others. The play in its entirety demonstrates a constant battle among several characters to overcome to the luring powers of evil and maintain goodness. With time, characters like Macbeth lose their senses of what is right or wrong and only care about their personal gains.
Hi Tara! Very interesting point, you helped me re-evaluate each character's role in the play. I also agree about Macbeth's moral decline, as his "vaulting ambition" leads him to lease his sanity and sense of right and wrong.
DeleteHey Tara. If I remember correctly, Lady Macbeth tagged her husband as a coward when he didn't want to kill King Duncan. So is that really trying to return to the good path? Because technically Macbeth wasn't on the path of evil, he was just thinking about it. Also, you are correct about many of the characters fighting their inner demons of morality and evil. Do you think Lady Macbeth is one of the people who are in this battle?
DeleteGood V.S Evil
ReplyDeleteFrom Macbeth’s guilt trips before and after the murder of king Duncan, this story must be one built complex psychological issues. From the words,” All Hail, Macbeth! Hail to thee, Thane of Glamis, All Hail, Macbeth! Hail to thee, Thane of Cawdor! All Hail, Macbeth! Hail to thee, that shalt be king here-after!” the audience gains a supernatural scene where the fate of Macbeth has been prophesied. (50-55) Although we have read that Macbeth has guilty stricken thoughts before and after the murder of Duncan, as portrayed by the lines,” If it were don’t tis done… and falls on the other” it’s not solely Macbeth’s thoughts that push him towards the murder. (0-28) Because of the witch’s prophecies of having obtained both thane of Glamis and thane of Cawdor, why wouldn’t Macbeth believe in the prophecy? In addition, with the Witch’s prophecy and Macbeth said to be ambition, Macbeth is further pushed towards killing Duncan by his own wife as seen in the lines,” what beast was’t then…have done to this”. (53-65) Although Macbeth is thane of Glamis and Cawdor, it seems ironic how Shakespeare uses human nature to unwittingly bring the downfall of Macbeth’s loyalty to Duncan, as Lady Macbeth challenges Macbeth’s manhood. From having done all this, Macbeth is still said to have not changed into a lifeless soul, but has been guilt stricken as portrayed on his speech on how can’t sleep. Having taken all these enablers into consideration, the witch’s prophecy, the guilt trips before and after the murder, the said to be ambition for the crown, and Lady’s Macbeth’s deception, the story of Macbeth is not a mere battle of good vs evil but a complex story of psychological issues.
Hi Justin,
DeleteI really like the examples that you chose to support your ideas, such as the quote of how Macbeth compares his actions to that of a "beast". At the end of your response, I think that it was effective how you compared the feelings of Macbeth before and after his murder of King Duncan. Although I had previously thought that this story was one of complex psychological issues, I now firmly agree with my opinion after reading your response since the evidence that you incorporated were logical and effective. Good job!
Raymond Chang
Per. 4
Period 4
ReplyDeleteFate vs Free Will
The events predicted by the Weird Sisters were already predestined by fate. However, It was Macbeth's own actions that led this to come. He believed in the words of the sisters and acted upon them. If he had treated the prophecy lightly, and was more cautious, his actions would have probably taken a different course. He was given the option to not kill the king, and he was constantly doubting whether or not he should, demonstrating that he could have indeed changed the way his life would play. Ulitmately though, he went along with the side of the sisters simply because he believed that he must since there was a prophecy saying so. In essence, there was free will involved, but in the end, fate will prevail and dictate all that occurs. Even if certain actions went against the words of the sisters, the end result will most likely be the same.
Melody Hsueh
ReplyDeletePeriod 6
15 Dec. 2015
2. Who is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
In my opinion, Macbeth himself is responsible for the transformation. Because of his innate greed for the title of a king, he obediently listened in Lady Macbeth’s urging. As a reputable, honorable. and trustworthy general that just won a war, I find it unconvincing that Macbeth did not have the mental ability to distinguish between right and wrong. In his soliloquy in Act 1, scene 7, lines 1–28, he convinces himself out of murdering the king by listing all the reasons why he shouldn’t do it. First, he points out his loyalty to Duncan as “his kinsman and his subject” and the noble qualities in the king. He is a treasured king to the country that if he were to die, “tears shall drown the wind.” Moreover, he fears that the by committing the sin, the “Bloody instructions which, being taught, [will] return To plague th’inventor.” Here, it is evident that he is aware of the consequences of murder. Although at this moment in the play, he was momentarily convinced out of killing Duncan, he convinced himself to not murder Duncan for all the wrong reasons. His rationale for not doing it was too calculated. His reasons were not sincere. Thus, his mind was convinced out of doing it, but his heart was never fully convinced. It’s ironic how he never came across the thought that he shouldn’t do the evil deed because he shouldn’t kill an innocent human--let alone the virtuous king. Therefore, the only cause to blame here is Macbeth’s “Vaulting ambition.” Of course, we can’t totally disregard that Lady Macbeth took advantage of his greed rather than his weak mental state. Lady Macbeth poked at that greed, but Macbeth, himself, is the one that succumbed to his feelings despite knowing the consequences.
Hey Melody!
DeleteI like your point about how Macbeth knew the consequences of killing the king but never fully rid himself of his “vaulting ambition” and subconscious desire to be king. I never really thought about his reaction that way; I had always thought that it was mostly Lady Macbeth’s prodding and goading that caused him to murder Duncan.
Dylan Shen P.6
Hi Melody,
DeleteAlthough I also agree that Macbeth is to blame for his ultimate downfall, I don't agree with how you said that "obediently listened" to Lady Macbeth's words. Macbeth questions Lady Macbeth's words by asking "If we should fail?" (Act 1, Sc. VII, Line 66). If Macbeth had obediently listened to Lady Macbeth, then he would have immediately murdered King Duncan, no questions asked. Instead, I believe that Macbeth hesitated prior to actually killing King Duncan, since Macbeth is, as you said, one with noble qualities.
Besides that, I feel that the rest of your response was very strong since you were able to support your claims with clear evidence from the text. One of your evidences that stood out to me is words "vaulting ambition". These words effectively illustrate how Macbeth is an individual with qualities that were initially positive but then turned malicious. With this, your response is now well supported and logical to readers. Good job!
Raymond Chang
Period 4
Hi Melody!
DeleteI agree with you that Macbeth is at fault for his own transformation. I really like your point about how his being a general indicates his strength and intelligence, and therefore, he should've been able to distinguish right from wrong. Furthermore, the quotes you chose were very relevant to your argument.
Tiffany Lau
Period 6
Emilie Kovalik
ReplyDeletePeriod 6
2. Who is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
Lady Macbeth was certainly the one to blame for this matter. In Act I Scene VII, Macbeth clearly states to his wife, “We will proceed no further in this business.” He holds his morals as a good and noble Thane, and reminds Lady Macbeth that he does, “all that may become a man.” Macbeth, like the rest of the kingdom, recognizes that Duncan, “hath borne his faculties so meek, hath been so clear in his great office” (act1sc7) and very clearly indicates that Duncan has done nothing to deserve death. Lady Macbeth uses her persuasive skills to brainwash Macbeth into his final decision, going as far as saying she would, “dash the brains out [of her own child], had I sworn as you have done to this.” (act1sc7) The shocking imagery of her destroying a theoretical child guilt trips Macbeth into the murder even further. If she could kill her own flesh and blood, why can’t Macbeth kill not only a “stranger,” but a stranger who is standing between him and the crown? Granted, Lady Macbeth is not the only one at fault. Had Macbeth had more power over his wife and been more strong-minded, Lady Macbeth’s words would have no effect on him and he could have kept on living in confidence. Although Macbeth may have been just a bit too impressionable, Lady Macbeth should have known better than to drive her husband to murder. Macbeth would have been satisfied with his titles of Thane of Cawdor and Glamis, but the greed and selfishness of Lady Macbeth (for power she would have no access to) pushed him to a role he was not ready or deserving to undertake.
Through the tools of prophecy and supposed free will, fate controls Macbeth’s story. Macbeth considers, “If chance will have me King, why, / chance may crown me, / Without my stir.” (160) Therefore prophecy itself doesn’t cause Macbeth’s desire, but instead brings it forth. Here Macbeth clearly wants to be king, and although he says he’ll leave it up to chance, his desire, or “vaulting ambition,” (I. vii. 25-27) ultimately overpowers him. However, consider that fate might have determined that the Weird Sisters would intercept Macbeth tell him that prophecy. Fate is, after all, defined as the development of events beyond a person’s control, and so, their meeting could have been fated.
ReplyDeleteAlso, fate determines free will more than it would seem, so that free will is not completely a choice. The circumstances and society that people grow up in creates the people that they become, and they then make decisions based on those societal values and on their past experiences. After all, if fate can decide all the events that happen in the world, is it so unreasonable that fate determines people’s family and community? From there, people’s values, and then, their choices? Free will might not be so free after all, but, instead, determined by fate in and of itself.
I’m sure at least some of you will disagree that fate can determine people’s choices because of our pervasive philosophy of individualism here in America. We are brought up to consider people independently of their backgrounds, and to believe that every individual chooses whether or not to make a good or bad choice independently of society or institutions such as schools. However, think back to your own experiences with morality. I know that I first learned of morality from my parents, and then from my religion. If I had grown up with a different family, or if I had a different religion, I would have different values and I wouldn’t make the same decisions I do today. Therefore, it is possible that fate determined the choices I thought I made myself, and that fate determined Macbeth’s entire story.
My topic is Fate v. Free Will and I am in Period 4!
DeleteHey Serene!
DeleteI completely agree that free will is not all so free, but rather just an effect that apparently emerges when fate acts upon us and our environment. Your argument is rational and to a rather large degree I'm sure applies to the world, but sometimes, just sometimes, there are people who act as outliers and behave differently than we'd expect them.
Now, I changed my thinking mid-paragraph here where I was going to attempt a contradiction to your idea, but I believe it holds in some sense for the case of just about anyone. Take the outliers I mentioned. These individuals may behave differently, but this behavior could very well just be a response to the stimulus of their unique and different environments. Even further, some people may have fundamentally different ways of thinking, but in general (generalizations are dangerous, but who cares :D ) human behavior could be accounted for as each persons attempt at a rational response to the given conditions in their environment and the means they have to interpret those conditions.
In short, your idea of free will is rather accurate. Free will it is nothing more than a construct of our imaginations, but the diversity in behavior we do see is an effect of the varying conditions that each person experiences. So while individualism, like you mentioned, is not absolutely existent, each person has unique environments and unique methods of thinking that purvey the illusion of individualism.
Philip Chen
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
2. Who is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
While Macbeth ultimately murders his king Duncan, his wife Lady Macbeth facilitated his judgment so significantly that she must be blamed. Initially, Macbeth served Duncan with his great loyalty in battle. When his wife points out how he could take the throne, he even acknowledges his allegiance to the king, stating “I am his kinsman, and his subject” (1.7.13). However, his sense of duty was too weak and easily caved to his wife’s ambitions. Macbeth did not commit the murder for his own desires for royalty; he did it for his wife. Lady Macbeth imposed her vision upon him before he followed her orders like a servant. When a soldier kills others on a battlefield, we typically blame his leaders for the bloodshed. Similarly, since she had so much influence over his actions, we cannot attribute the fault to Macbeth.
Hey Phil!
DeleteYour argument is very solid, and I really enjoyed how you referred to the common debate of whether a soldier or his leader should take the blame. However, I disagree with this statement. The most common excuse of people put on trial for their crimes, particularly in the case of the Nazis for the Holocaust, is that they were “just following orders.” Their crimes are not excused by simply casting the blame on another person; crimes that violate basic human ethics are unforgivable, and the fault lies with everyone involved. This is the case of Macbeth, where Macbeth could have easily decided to lay down his daggers and refused. Lady Macbeth may have pushed and abetted Duncan’s murder, but Macbeth’s weak personality and ambition for power is why he even listened to the witches’ prophecy. Macbeth wanted to see the prophecy fulfilled, and he took it into his own hands by choosing to commit regicide and treason. Furthermore, he becomes consumed by his own greed and paranoia, without consulting with his wife over his illogical decisions. I completely understand your perspective as it has its strong reasons, but I do not agree personally.
HI PHILIP!
DeleteI agree with your idea on how Macbeth was the player on the field, playing the plan Lady Macbeth has arranged. Unlike Brendon, I agree on how the soldiers take order from their leader and display the plan on the battlefield. The leader is to blame because of his ability to persuade and lay out his tactic to simple words that the soldiers take in. For example, the hesitation of the murderers, when Macbeth ordered them to do his dirty deed. They were following orders but the constant nagging of Macbeth hurting their ego as men put forth the work of the murderers. This is not to put blame on Macbeth but his cowardice and his lack of ‘manliness’ caused him to be vulnerable when his wife made fun of him of being feminine. This is a chain of influence on Macbeth and the people around him. Susan Snyder said that the witches predicted the future but Lady Macbeth was the one, who created steps to that future for Macbeth. When Macbeth did all his killing, he listened to his wife but when his wife passed away, the influence of Lady Macbeth was still with him. Near the end of the play, Macbeth stop consulting with his wife because he knew that she was getting sick and that he was all on his own now. We can see the transition of who to blame from the beginning to the end, Lady Macbeth. I agree with your ideas Philip but not much with Brendon.
But Susan, how do you account for the decisions that Macbeth makes without his wife's direction? The only death she knows about and is complicit in is Duncan's. Can we really say that she is responsible for the other deaths, when she is unaware of his plans and decision-making process? Can we hold her responsible for inspiring further evil?
DeleteAndrew Ortegaray, P.4
ReplyDelete2) Who is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
Who is truly to blame? Is there simply a one or the other answer? In a cause and effect case, Macbeth’s decline would simply be Lady Macbeth’s fault. In her absence, he would not have been goaded into committing the murder and becoming the broken shadow of man seen in act five. This is, however, not taking into account the fact that he very well could have broken at some point later in his life and that at a fundamental level Macbeth’s morality is corrupt.
Lady Macbeth, the woman who prompted Macbeth with insults of a frightened “cat i’ adage”, was certainly the catalyst in this entire reaction-transformation of Macbeth; her role here is well established as such (I.vii.49) If it can be determined that Macbeth’s change is invariant under Lady Macbeth’s influence on him, then he certainly is the one ultimately responsible for his change. Although, if it can be determined that he is, well, good at heart and would not have acted as such, then she is the one responsible.
Now, before this goes on, it needs to be established or at least assumed (with fair precedent) that humans have faults and at least have had, at some point in their lives, a desire to commit a sin. These desires to commit sins are inhibited by, well, the rather aptly named inhibition. Throughout the play we see various instances of Macbeth’s inhibition. He acknowledges his loyalty to King Duncan and the debt he owes the king for being “honored” as the Thane of Cawdor (I.vii.35). He acknowledges the murder he is about to commit is wrong as the King is in “double trust” of Macbeth as a host and subject. (I.vii.13).Macbeth does have these inhibitions several other times before the murder, however, the influence of his Lady overcomes them and leads to Duncan’s death. As it stands, the Macbeth seen at the beginning of the play would never have committed Duncan’s murder and changed morally; his inhibitions were simply strong enough to prevent these from happening. There is one more thing to be considered, though, Macbeth is not fundamentally a static character and so his ability to fight his inhibitions can change.
Macbeth, if one could imagine, is in a state similar to being in the trough at the top of a hill, he’s perfectly safe up to a point, but one he exceeds that point of maximum inhibition, it’s well for a lack of better phrasing, all downhill from there. Under the Lady’s influence he certainly passes the point of no return and as we initially saw him he is completely stable in the trough. The key here and to the remainder of this discussion is that Macbeth himself changes and so his tendency to get closer and closer to the tipping point increases. Macbeth certainly outwardly shows greed as seen by his reaction, his “charge” to the prophecy of the witches and up until the murder he shows a desire to be king that increasingly worked against his inhibitions. Being Thane of Cawdor and Thane of Glamis, Macbeth certainly could have developed a taste for power that could only have been sated by killing Duncan and becoming king. Under appropriate conditions, Macbeth could have been lead to the killing and exceeding that inhibition point, going on a downward spiral towards the man we last saw. Granted, this situation was entirely speculation, the fact is that Macbeth possesses within him the capacity to kill and eventually undergo the transformation in the absence of Lady Macbeth. This independence from her influence is then why he is ultimately responsible for undergoing the transformation and not Lady Macbeth.
I like your point, Andrew, about Macbeth not being a static character. All literature is based on a conflict, ultimately, for without conflict there is no real story. It is what forces characters to change--sometimes for good, sometimes not.
DeleteLady Macbeth seems to think they can escape this heinous crime relatively unscathed; she is ill-prepared for how it changes her. Who would have guessed that the tough-as-nails Lady M would end up wandering around in her nightie, washing her hands, and babbling on and on? On the flip side, noble Macbeth, waxing on and on about his guilt after the crime, surprises us by turning so entirely evil. How is he the same guy who thought through the consequences so logically earlier in the play?
Dynamic characters make the story; they create the drama. It is what makes literature come to life.
Serene Kamal Per. 4
DeleteHi Andrew,
I really liked your analogy of a hill for Macbeth's inhibition levels! As you said, Lady Macbeth was the catalyst in his decline, but Macbeth did have the desire within him even before Lady Macbeth's needling. I would even go so far as to say that Macbeth let himself be persuaded by Lady Macbeth, rather than being backed into a corner by Lady Macbeth's sexist jabs.
1. Fate vs Free Will
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that Macbeth got caught up in these prophecies and acted foolishly due to their predicted fate. The witches declared “Fear not, Macbeth. No man that's born of woman. Shall e'er have power upon thee." While they were ultimately true, as his slayer "Macduff was from his mother's womb untimely ripped," therefore not a man born of women, it seems a meaningful and even slightly comical coincidence. Macbeth changed from a noble soldier and acquaintance to a ruthless murderer throughout the course of this story. He relied on these prophecies to keep him safe from avengers throughout his barbaric rule. However, his actions, particularly the orchestrated murder of Macduff's family, were his own fault and led to his ultimate downfall. The story of Macbeth seems to be a commentary on human nature and the dangers of being seemingly untouchable, a theme still highly relevant in today's world.
Hey Katya I also did this topic. It was definetely intriguing to see you touch upon on humann nature. I feel that in human nature there actually does exist a drive to be in absolute control or power. From a literary perspective, look at "Lord of the Flies". Jack basically ignores any logic on hand and abuses the power he has. As he accumalates more and more power, he does more evil and cyncical things like killing Simon. Similarly, Macbeth here is not satisfied and does not want to take any chances after killing Duncan. Granted, the prophecy does steer him, but the burning desire for power ultimately proves to be his downfall.
DeleteAshley Dale
ReplyDeletep6
FATE AND FREE WILL:
I believe that the telling of fate can affect someone’s free will. In Scene One,the Three Witches greet Macbeth by saying, “All hail, Macbeth! Hail to thee, Thane of Glamis! All hail, Macbeth! Hail to thee, Thane of Cawdor! All hail, Macbeth, that shalt be king hereafter!” (1.3.51-53). After this encounter with the witches Macbeth was then named Thane of Cawdor. Because the witches “predictions” came true, Macbeth then started to desire the throne. He uses reasoning by deciding to leave it up to chance, “If chance will have me king, why, chance may crown me, without my stir.” (1.3.157-159). Macbeth’s actions because of his desire to fulfill his fate are treacherous and ultimately end up with not Macbeth being King, but actually dead. In Scene 1, when Macbeth heard that Malcom was promised the throne, Macbeth then made the decision to kill him. Perhaps if Macbeth didn’t hear the witches predictions he never would have made the decision to kill Malcom in order to obtain the throne, in fact he might not have even desired it in the first place. Fate does have some effect on free will and vice versa. Our actions always have consequences and one act that was seemingly nothing (at least to Lady Macbeth at first) like killing Malcom, set off a chain of events (ie. Macbeth going on a throne hungry bloodthirsty rampage) that ultimately ended in his death and Lady Macbeth’s insanity. To summarize, fate and free will go hand in hand.
Hi Ashley,
DeleteI completely agree with you in that fate and free will work in tandem. The witches merely stated a prophecy, and had Macbeth left these prophecies to be fulfilled by fate, the ending events could have been much different. It was his choice to attempt to fill the prophecies that ultimately led to his demise. I also like your point on how one of these things affects the other. Yes, they work together, but they also bounce off of eachother too. Things that happen by chance can be altered by free will (as seen in Macbeth's case), but deliberate choices can also be changed without any intent to do so. Overall a really exploratory and thoughtful answer! :)
Mashu Sugiyama
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
As I said before pre-Macbeth, I do believe there is a certain road paved for us(fate), but ultimately, the person is the one deciding whether or not to take the road, or go in another path, or turn around and walk away from everything.
In Macbeth's case, the witches(fates) told him his destiny, but ultimately, it was his decision to kill everyone, in order to take the throne. He knew he shouldn't have killed King Duncan, but he did it anyway, and he ultimately regrets it, saying, "Will all great Neptune's ocean wash this blood clean from my hand? No, this my hand will rather; the multitudinous seas incarnadine; making the green one red."
He also says he will never be able to sleep again.
Ultimately, I do think that there were alternate options to earning the throne, aside from just killing the King.
Hi Mashu!
DeleteI agree with your idea on how people choose different paths and this will pave different fates in the future. When it comes to fate, there will always be hardships and obstacles to face and I believe that Lady Macbeth was one of it. Yes, Macbeth choose his own path but he had Lady Macbeth point directions out for him because he was lost on how to achieve his own fate as a moral man. Macbeth allowed Lady Macbeth, without any resistance, to show him a faster route to his fate but this led to a tragic ending of his fate.
Hi Mashu!
DeleteI agree with your statement, since fate is more of a route that can be taken based on what decisions you make. There is no such thing as one singular path, as there are so many other decisions that can be made in place of one single path. Macbeth could of killed Duncan's heirs instead, and gotten to become king that way, or he could of stayed as thane of glamis and not have gone through any of this and would of effectively avoided fate.
2. Who is to blame? Macbeth or Lady Macbeth
ReplyDeleteI feel that, though Lady Macbeth did push Macbeth to murder Duncan, it is still Macbeth's fault. This was a test on his will to see if he would do the right thing and remain Duncan's loyal subject or give in to his greed and Lady Macbeth's urgings to kill Duncan. Because he did not stand up to his wife, Macbeth is to blame for giving in to his greed and pressure. Additionally, his transformation is his own fault. His change is a gradual accumulation of him ignoring his conscience. His morality slowly declines to a soft and later nonexistent voice in the back of his head from all the times he ignores it. Instead, Lady Macbeth's thoughts become his, motivating him to kill more and more potential obstacles to his reign. Yes, while Lady Macbeth did set up the potential for all this madness (suggesting how and who to kill), Macbeth could easily have stood up to her. Therefore, Macbeth - rather than Lady Macbeth - is to blame for his transformation.
Nice topic! I love visiting in this blog. Thanks for sharing.
ReplyDeleteบาคาร่าออนไลน์
จีคลับ
gclub casino
Thanks for sharing this useful info. Keep updating same way
ReplyDeletewordpress
ufa88kh.blogspot
youtube
មាន់ជល់