Macbeth Journal #9
Respond to one of the prompts below; be sure to cite textual evidence, post, and reply. Don't forget to include your name, the bold-faced title that represents your journal prompt selection, and your class period in the title.
- Life and Death-In Act I Malcom states, “Nothing in his life/Became him like the leaving it, as he refers to the traitorous Thane of Cawdor. Malcolm also says that this Thane of Cawdor threw away the dearest thing he owned. How might these two statements also apply to Macbeth? Could these apply to people in actual life?
- Good versus Evil-One of the themes in Macbeth centers on evil, which Shakespeare saw as a force beyond human understanding. Do you think Shakespeare also saw evil as stronger than the forces of good?
- The Epitome of Sympathy-The philosopher Aristotle argued that a bad man cannot be the principal character of a tragedy. Does Shakespeare keep you from losing all sympathy for Macbeth in spite of Macbeth’s increasing viciousness? If so at what point did you lose sympathy? Why?
- Strengths are Weaknesses-One critic has observed that part of Macbeth’s tragedy is the fact that many of his strengths are his weaknesses. Explain this paradox.
- Alternate Ending-Think of a single event that could have averted Macbeth’s tragic end. Write a summary or short script from that moment to the alternate ending.
Please see the discussion board rubric linked below.
Natalia 1st period
ReplyDeleteThe Epitome of Sympathy
Early in the play, it's possible to feel for Macbeth. Shakespeare makes it easier to sympathize with Macbeth at first because he shows his reluctance to kill King Duncan. He only follows through with the deed so that his wife would still respect him. Even though he has meditated on killing Duncan even before he talks to his wife, as readers we still hope that Macbeth will ignore his sinful desire. From the point that Macbeth kills Duncan and on, it’s hard to sympathize with him. Shakespeare does try to show that Macbeth is still human and feels guilt through adding Macbeth’s hallucination’s ghosts but at this point, he isn’t even himself anymore. He is so consumed by his paranoia that he is killing every one. At this point, he doesn’t even hesitate to kill a man. No one ever sympathizes with a cold-blooded serial killer. Because of his malicious behavior he finds himself alone in the end with only his crown as his ally.
Brennan Lewis (6th)
DeleteI agree that the reader is left with some hope for Macbeth until he kills Duncan. Though I could sympathize to a certain extent with Macbeth's guilt, he continued to fall into insanity and corruption at such a rate that it was difficult to feel bad for him.
I disagree. I think Macbeth is a sympathetic character for the whole of the show. He has been tempted so much by fate as opposed to the frequently used idiom. I'm his position, many of us would have acted similarly. Presented with the object of his desires, Macbeth does destroy his morality, but it was a less than ideal situation.
DeleteI think that after his murder of banquo is really where his paranoia and hubris surfaced. I agree with Riley, though. I maintained sympathy for Macbeth, despite his morals being lost to ambition.
DeleteMeredyth Albright - Second Period
DeleteWhile it is easy to accuse Macbeth for all the terrible things he did, I still feel sympathy for him, because it is obvious how broken he is inside due to his own stupid, selfish, wrongfully ambitious actions. He is a human, with human fallacies, and now he is paying for his deeds.
- Good Versus Evil
ReplyDeleteI don't think that Macbeth really saw good and evil as two separate entities, or if one was stronger than the other. Good and Evil both exist on different planes of human thought, it's just that Evil can be more swaying, exciting, interesting to humans than good. The reason why he probably said that it's beyond human understanding s probably also because Humans may not WANT to understand it, if you ever did anything bad in your life but you enjoyed it, would you really call that evil? Also, Evil and Good can also be determined by whom sees it, all people in the world have difference of opinion and difference of what is "Good" and "Evil". Human beings are creatures of both Good and Evil, sometimes we teeter from one to the other in day-to-day life but sometimes we may overstep that thin line, where you may fall depends on what your morality may lie. Shakespeare probably also knew this which is why he placed Macbeth in a situation of Moral dependency. The situation being to either "Kill he King and take the throne" or "Ignore the prophecy".
Brennan Lewis (6th)
DeleteI agree that the line between good and evil is not so clear as one might think. Many decisions that people have to make throughout their lives have no clear-cut "right" answer.
Leslie Castro (6th)
DeleteI like your point that Evil is more exciting to humans. There is a reason why villains are so big in stories. They keep the story much more interesting than if everything was perfect. They are huge sources of conflict, and a story needs conflict. Why watch the protagonist sail through life when you can seem them battle against Evil?
I agree that good and evil are not what society see's it as.
DeleteI agree with your point but the prompt was asking how Shakespeare saw good and evil-not Macbeth. I think you just made a typo in the first sentence since you later went on and said Shakespeare.
DeleteI agree that good and evil are based on someone path.
DeleteGood and evil are certainly subjective howrver evil becomes clear when there is a good.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeletePeriod 6
DeleteI find your point interesting that Shakespere did not see good nor evil persay but both sides. Although I personally thought he saw more evil- especially with lady macduff viewing the world that way- I can totally see where you're coming from.
Brennan Lewis (6th) - Life and Death
ReplyDeleteWhen Malcolm says "Nothing in his life became him like the leaving it" (Act I, Scene 4, Lines 7-8), he means that the Thane of Cawdor did not express any regret at facing his own death. Similarly, the "dearest thing" (Line 10) that Malcolm refers to is the Thane of Cawdor's life and past successes. Macbeth parallels this progression of events in his own death scene in Act V, refusing to beg for Macduff to spare his life. As the various visions that Macbeth saw with the Weird Sisters come true, Macbeth begins to realize that he will fail. After Macduff tells him that he is not "woman born" (Line 13), Macbeth knows that he has met his match and is facing the end. However, he is too proud and has little left to lose, so he admits to his crimes and fights until Macduff kills him.
I think that people in real life may act the same way when caught in bad situations. The U.S. currently has many problems in its prison systems, including overcrowding. Some people who are incarcerated, finish their sentence, and then reenter society return to prison within a few months because they feel like, with little support systems to help them find a stable living situation and income, they have nothing left to lose by returning to prison. Individuals who come closest to giving up on themselves are the ones who need the most support.
pd-6
DeleteI agree with what you said about the parallels between the two men and your ending point was a good connection. Malcolm's idea that passionately dying for your beliefs, even if they're wrong, says a lot about the value of war heroes and violence in the sixteenth century.
Macbeth retains his hubris even given knowledge that the end is near. I agree with you that he is too proud to admit defeat, but his obscene pride makes it so that he fights a losing battle even with that
DeleteI agree with your point that he was too proud to give up and I also believe it was his way of going back to his battling days before he became King. From what we know, he never gave up in battle before and despite all his other characteristic changes, this is one that did not change.
DeleteIf Macbeth had been able to understand his own inability to be resolute in the wake of murder than he could have stayed his course as a force for goodness and ascended into greatness as a warrior, a man, and a king. Instead of becoming that classical Hero, his hubris brings his downfall. So assured of his own ability to avoid the guilt associated with the heinous act, he kills Duncan. After that moment, not only is his soul symbolically destroyed, but the real implications make him hallucinate and prone to violent outbursts. He is fully incapable of being an effective ruler or fighter when devoid of rationality. If not for his fatal flaw, his pride, than he could have filled his destiny to he king and retained his goodness to do it. He would have been fair and strong, making Macbeth a story of honor and vapor instead of corruption.
ReplyDeletepd 6
DeleteI wonder if Macbeth would have done something similar if he hadn't heard the witches prophecy. Part of my feels like, if he can be swayed to murder from a suggestion, he would have found some excuse to end up where he does.
Leslie Castro (6th)
DeleteI agree that if Macbeth hadn't tried so hard to pretend everything was okay he could have had an easier time.
rationality is definitely important for all decision making, and he was lacking this key factor in attempting to be a good leader.
DeleteDivya Agarwal Pd 1
DeleteForest, I feel like even if Macbeth were to know where he was destined to end up/how he would react to his own murders, he would find a way to disregard the prophecy and label it as trash.
Hannah Medford, Pd-6, Strengths are Weaknesses
ReplyDeleteMacbeth's strongest character trait is his ambition. Throughout the whole story he stays true to his goal, to become,and stay, king. He is willing to go to any lengths to achieve this, yes he is persuaded by Lady Macbeth but he was at least 75% on board before that. His unfaltering devotion to his cause is his strongest characteristic. But it's also his downfall, his weakness. If he didn't have this ambition he wouldn't have been so rash in his murders. He might have been more patient and waited to be king. He would have been a better ruler (even though he's only king for a brief time we get the sense that he would not be a good one long term). His ambition can be considered both his strength and his weakness.
Hannah Cooper(1)
DeleteI agree with the idea that he stays true to his goal and will go to any lengths to achieve it, I think this shows true ambition even though it is negative. I also agree that his devotion to the cause is a weakness because it causes him to make decisions that are not in his best interest, leading to his downfall.
I agree also with his ambition being his strength and his weakness. It's really a double-edged sword, and ambition by itself is neither bad nor good. It depends on the person utilizing it. Before the play starts, Macbeth probably used his ambition to gain a high position in the army and to battle Scotland's enemies. However, that ambition is twisted by him to a darker purpose of gaining and keeping the throne. Ultimately, Macbeth's inability to make concessions about his goals - his fierce ambition - leads to his downfall.
DeleteMacbeth's ambition really is like a weapon, but the blade ends up against his own throat. His balance between positive ambition and negative ambition was skewed, and this ultimately led to his demise. [pd. 2]
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLeslie Castro 2nd Period The Epitome of Sympathy
ReplyDeleteShakespeare does not keep me from losing all sympathy for Macbeth, however, he strings me along for a while. I feel bad for Macbeth until III.2 when he orders Banquo's murder.
You can clearly see that Lady Macbeth pushed Macbeth to kill Duncan. You can also see that in the after-effects. He couldn't pray, he was on edge, and his wife did nothing to soothe his mind. Macbeth tried so hard to keep up appearances.
But Macbeth brought up Banquo's death on his own accord. The paranoia and insanity had corrupted him so much he snapped and had to clear all any suspicion. Similar to how kings, historically, have wiped out those who knew too much of their shady actions. Let's not forget that before the events of the play Macbeth and Banquo were dear friends! I can't imagine how messed up I would have to be to murder *my* best friend.
I do feel sorry for Macbeth in that he was living life normally (as much as a fierce soldier can) until the events of the play start. He had no thoughts of the throne until the witches put it there and his wife stressed it to the max. I feel bad in that he was pushed to insanity for something he may not have wanted.
That's the point about a tragic hero: the audience isn't meant to entirely love or entirely hate them.
Hannah Cooper(1)
DeleteI agree with the point at which you lost sympathy for Macbeth. Very nice comment about the point of a tragic hero, I do indeed have mixed feelings about the character of Macbeth. I feel that he has both positive and negative traits.
I do feel sorry for Macbeth at the begginning of the play when his wife manipulates him, but in the end he is a bad person because it is his choice to kill the king.
DeleteBanquo's murder was the tipping point for me as well. They had such a bond between them, and Macbeth severs it without much hesitation. He does experience the pretty heavy after-effect of Banquo's ghost, and I think that's what allows me to feel a bit of sympathy again for Macbeth: he's gone partially insane. At this point, and especially towards the end of the play, Macbeth's actions have corrupted his mind so much that I don't think he's still mentally sound. I still don't like him, but I can understand his actions, at least.
DeleteI agree as well, Banquo's murder seems to also be symbolic of the final severance and abandonment of Macbeth and any morals he may ever have believed in.
DeleteHannah Cooper(1)- Good versus evil
ReplyDeleteFrom the very first act in Macbeth, we see that evil is going to be a driving force throughout the play. I think that the way Shakespeare chose to open the play is an accurate representation of evil being a force beyond human understanding. Witches are supernatural beings that humans have no way of controlling or understanding. I think this is similar to the force of evil in the sense that some people are just bad people and there really isn’t an explanation for that.
I think Shakespeare saw evil as a stronger force than good because he chose to make the main characters take part in evil deeds rather than good ones. I think that Macbeth started out as a character with good intentions, but he had to many outside negative factors that influenced him to become evil. I believe that he only got the idea to murder the king after the witches told him the prophecy. Even then, he still knew what he was doing was wrong and was feeling doubtful about his actions. Lady Macbeth telling him that he wasn't manly enough to commit the crime was the last straw that caused Macbeth to turn evil. After the murder of the king, he murdered the chamberlains as well. In my opinion anyone that commits a murder is evil. Following the king’s murder, Macbeth starts to get anxious about Banquo suspecting something and also the fact that the witches said that Banquo’s descendants would become king. This causes Macbeth to hire murderers to go after Banquo and his son. I think the final straw that shows Macbeth is not a “good” person is when he says “ My strange and self-abuse is the initiate fear that wants hard use. We are but young in deed” Act 3, Scene 4 Line 148-150 This quote is implying that Macbeth has many more crimes planned and the more that he commits the less he will feel guilt and fear. This truly shows that Shakespeare saw evil as an overpowering force because he turned what seemed to be a good character into a murderer.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteCatherine Lumsden 2nd
DeleteThis play is definitely about corruption and the effects of evil. The doubts that Macbeth and Lady Macbeth have are the central part of the play. I like how you compared the witches to not understanding
While I agree that evil is a strong force, we also focus intently on its role in one person's life: Macbeth's. He becomes so corrupted that he is the source of his country's suffering, which prompts the reaction of Malcolm and Macduff to eradicate the evil. Shakespeare shows the skewed balance of (the interpretation of) good and evil, and focuses more on the evil because it appeals to audiences. "Good" is easy to explain, but there are multiple ways for someone to be evil.
DeleteI agree with Rachel. I think that Shakespeare places emphasis on the evil because it requires more in depth character analysis and there are so many different branches. The play would not have been nearly as dramatic if Macbeth was just a humble "good" man who stumbled upon becoming king. The drama, actions, and suspense all thread from evil, which is why it was emphasized.
DeleteCatherine Lumsden (2nd) - Life and Death
ReplyDeleteThe statements made by Malcolm can be applied to Macbeth. He says that the best thing that the Thane of Cawdor ever did was die, it means that anything good that he did was forgotten in his treachery. Macbeth did the same thing and when he dies, he dies in shame. His achievements in the past are forgotten for his biggest mistake, killing King Duncan. This can be compared with Siward's son, who died in the finale battle. Ross says that he was a boy when he went to war, "But like a man he died." The son is called noble on his death, unlike Macbeth.
When Malcolm says that the Thane threw away the dearest thing he owned, it can be compared to Macbeth killing Banquo and his honor. Before killing Duncan, he was admired and had a good friend in Banquo. By the time Macbeth dies, he has lost both his honor and his friend.
(1st period) I agree, Siward's son died an honorable death while Macbeth died in shame. Macbeth threw away his own honor, the dearest thing he had.
DeleteAmanda Nemecek (6) – Life and Death
ReplyDeleteOne of my favorite things for authors to do is bring their stories full circle, and Shakespeare does just that with Macbeth. When Malcolm states that the original Thane of Cawdor had “nothing in his life [that] became him like the leaving it,” (Act I, Scene IV) he has no idea that the next Thane of Cawdor, Macbeth, will follow in those traitorous footsteps. Yet Macbeth became twice the traitor the original Cawdor ever was, going so far as to commit regicide and kill close friends and innocents alike. Similarly, too, does Macbeth leave the world with a flashy fight scene. He battles with Macduff, crying, “Lay on, Macduff, and damned be him that first cries ‘Hold! enough!’” (Act V, Scene VIII)
However, despite his bold words, Macbeth is at this point rather tired of his life and of living in general. He earlier has stated, “I ‘gin to be aweary of the sun,” (Act V, Scene V) indicating that he has lost the will to live. Similar to the original Cawdor, Macbeth has, in Malcolm’s words, “[Thrown] away the dearest thing he owed,” (Act I, Scene IV) with that dearest thing being his life.
I do think these statements apply to people in real life. There are many stories of soldiers who have come from a not-so-great life but willingly sacrifice their lives for their brothers and sisters in arms. On a touchier subject, many consider those who commit suicide to have thrown away their “dearest thing.” As per usual, Shakespeare manages to weave themes into his stories that last for decades to come.
(1st period) I agree, Macbeth did become twice the traitor. I like how you explained the full circle of Macbeth's actions.
DeleteKadijah Holder (1st period) - Good Versus Evil
ReplyDeleteI do think that Shakespeare saw evil as stronger than the forces of good, or else Macbeth wouldn’t have turned from a tragic hero, to a completely malicious person. Macbeth started as a loyal soldier. Once he conversed with his wife about the prophecy, he struggle between choosing good or evil. He knew that killing King Duncan would be an evil act, “The deep damnation of his taking-off;” causing his first act of sin. Macbeth only gets deeper and deeper into the dark side as he progress through the play, killing more innocent people along the way. Shakespeare could have easily stopped Macbeth from killing anymore people after King Duncan or even not have had Macbeth to kill him, yet he chose to let Macbeth go through with the murders, proving that Shakespeare saw evil as stronger than the forces of good.
i agree with you. I love the details you included.
DeleteErin Eichenberger, p6- Yeah, Macbeth didn't really do anything to prove that good can triumph. Towards the end of the play he never pulled back or hesitated in his actions. I guess in the greater sense good did triumph because Macbeth died, but his internal conflict was definetly evil-set.
DeletePeriod 6
DeleteAssuming Shakespeare saw good and evil as opposite and knowing that Shakespeare saw evil as beyond human understanding, it could be concluded that goodness is entirely within human understanding. The quality of goodness is tangible, it is easy to think about and follow the motives of why one is good. This comparison relates to that of supernatural versus nature. If Shakespeare sees evil as this sort of other-worldly unfathomable phenomenon of human nature, good would be seen as the groundedness of reality and what is consistent. I think answering the question of whether Shakespeare sees evil as stronger than good ties into whether you believe Shakespeare argued supernatural, (believing the witches and fate controlled Macbeth's destiny), or natural (believing Macbeth made the decisions for himself).
Kiya Cotton Period 6
ReplyDeleteAlternate Ending
A single event that took place that contributed to Macbeth's tragic end, was him killing Duncan. Macbeth tells Lady Macbeth “We will proceed no further in this business." He could have been king with Duncan dying naturally instead of him being killed. This leads the path of Macbeth's tragic end. Also if Macbeth would not have tried to tie up the prophecy the witches had told him about Banquo. If he had been content with the destiny the witches promised him, he might have lived out his life as a successful king even though he had no heir to succeed him. If Macbeth did not do the things he did, he would not feel guilty. Without feeling guilty his end would have turned out different.
I total agree with the fact that if Macbeth would have just let Duncan die naturally he could have become king in a good way. Duncan could have gotten an illness which would cause him to die. Leaving the throne open for Macbeth without him feeling guilty for committing such a sinful sin.
DeleteI believe that Macbeth will never become king if he had never killed Duncan. The prophecy of Macbeth becoming king became true because the witches knew Macbeth will kill the king to take the throne. I agree he will feel guiltless if he let the passage of time to take place.
DeleteMonica Ramirez (6 pd)
ReplyDeleteThe Epitome of Sympathy
At the beginning at the play one does start feel empathy for Macbeth because he has a wife that criticizes him more than praising him. Lady Macbeth pressures her husband into committing a murder right after the evil sister tell him the prophecy. According to the prophecy Macbeth will become king. It’s not ever stated whether he wants to be king or not. When his wife told him that he must kill their king duncan at first he refuses but later he goes along with the plan. Thats when i lost a bit of sympathy for him.He’s a grown man and doesn’t have to go through whatever little complain his wife tells him. Shakespeare later gives him these hallucinations, and adds a porter scene to show that Macbeth in a way regrets his actions. Macbeth showing regrets does bring the reader back to feeling empathy only to lose some empathy when he kills his best friend only for a selfish act.
I agree at the very beginning Macbeth never stated whether he wants to be king or not but he was pressured by his wife and by a prophecy. I believed the ghost of his best friend shows that he still cared for him but he is afraid for his own safety and the course of life.
DeleteI agree with you. We do feel sympathy for Macbeth and looses sympathy.
DeleteDeepak Badveli, The Epitome of Sympathy, 1st
ReplyDeleteShakespeare has not kept me for losing all sympathy for Macbeth. Throughout the story Macbeth was aware what he was doing was wrong but people get scared when they know something bad will befall on them. Macbeth, like a frightened person did everything in his power to prevent his own downfall. “fruitless crown” I do feel sympathy for Macbeth how the witches and his wife has pressured him to do such an act and created a spiral of consequences. He could have lived his life as a loyal thane throughout the play without their influence. Even at the very end, he did not become a heartless beast that people believe. He cared for his wife and fights with the remaining honor and dignity he has before he died. “[Macbeth] to kiss the ground before young Malcolm’s feet, And to be baited with the rabble’s curse.” The only point I have lost sympathy was Macbeth decided to drag innocent people into this conflict. I am mainly talking about Macduff’s wife and son.
Brian Fischer (6)
DeleteMacbeth didn't care about his wife at the end. He writes off her death as worthless and unmemorable, and essentially says that she would have died sooner or later so it doesn't really make a difference that she died now. (Act 5, Scene 5, lines 17-28)
Period 6
DeleteYour statement that the witches and Lady Macbeth pressured Macbeth to commit his crimes and were responsible for creating the consequences really shines a light on Shakespeare's depiction of gender roles. While I would personally argue that Macbeth already had a foundation of desire off which the witches and his wife built, the fact that these women (or non-gender-specific) are portrayed as so negatively influential, yet so powerful, is a huge testament to how women were perceived.
Monica Ramirez (6 pd) You are completely right a good man can make bad decisions because their is no perfect human. However i dislike his reaction about his wife death which i saw coming considering all the horrible things she said to him the beginning before the murder of Duncan.
ReplyDeleteRachel Matsumura (2) – Good versus Evil
ReplyDeleteI think that Shakespeare accurately represents the constant “battle” of good and evil. One cannot really be stronger than the other, because they are still in opposition. They maintain a balance. Macbeth is an example of evil’s strength in one main person (Macbeth) and how it goes on to affect those around him. In the end, Shakespeare resolves the play by having the “good”- Malcolm, Macduff, and the other ‘rebels’ take the country back from the intense evil that Macbeth has become. This leaves the audience in catharsis, as the world is again balanced- evil took its turn, now good has time to reign. At least, that’s what the audience is led to believe (knowing from the prophecy that Banquo’s sons will be kings and that Banquo was relatively honorable). Through Macbeth, Shakespeare teaches the audience about this balance, and what happens when it is interrupted.
I agree I really don't think Shakespeare portrayed good or evil as stronger than the other in any sense. It was a swaying internal struggle that was never fully won.
DeleteBrian Fischer (6)
DeleteI think it also puts forth the idea that this balance really isn't permanent. After all, good only prevailed through bloodshed, and Banquo's lineage becomes king, but he dies before we ever get to see his worth. It's one big leap of faith into the next chapter of the unpredictable flow of time.
I agree! One of the important characteristics of the tragic hero is that they are neither completely good or completely evil. Macbeth is a perfect representation of this dilemma.
DeleteDivya Agarwal Pd 1
DeleteRachel I completely agree! I definitely think that good and evil are always at odds as well which is why there is still a problem in this world. If there was even the slightest imbalance, that force would have begun to win out a long time ago.
Varsha Kulasekarapandian (2)- Strengths are Weaknesses
ReplyDeleteI agree with the critic. Macbeths strengths and characteristics although in one light can be seen as good, are often in excess resulting in major flaws. This all relates back to our original class discussion with the pre-Macbeth questions, many relating to how too much of a good thing can ultimately be bad. Macbeth’s strong sense of purpose, his belief in prophecy, and his ambitions are all great traits. These traits are what make him a hero, traits that could potentially lead him to greatness. However Macbeth is a tragic hero, meaning he makes mistake which in the end leads to his demise. His overly strong sense of purpose and belief in the prophecy created a perfect scapegoat for Macbeth to hide behind when committing such immoral acts, allowing him to believe anything he wanted to do would be inevitable. His ambition although seemingly innocent, was far too selfish and mislead by Lady Macbeth as well as his own degrading state of mind. In the end Macbeth paid the price for his wrong-doings, his strengths became mortal flaws.
Erin Eichenberger, p6- Life and Death
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of the play, Macbeth is set up as a tragic hero; he is given many worthy characteristics. In Act I Scene II he is called “brave,” “valiant,” and a “worthy gentlemen.” This is all before Macbeth even makes his first appearance on stage. He is highly trusted by the king, who grants him a second thaneship as soon as one is available, and agreed by all to be an upstanding nobleman. By the end of the play, everyone who respected Macbeth is dead or rebellious. His greatest asset was the trust others placed on him, which is clearly broken by that point. Malcom's quote applies because despite all that Macbeth did to better Scotland, it was outweighed by the horrible deeds of his reign as king. His death was for the benefit of the country.
These statements are very applicable to the modern world. Politicians often sacrifice values and promises to gain power or favor. For oppressed people living under dictatorships, it is often beneficial for their leader to die. When a person has done nothing but slaughter and subjugate, it is most becoming for them to die.
While I agree with your point, I question the severity of your last statement. Death is a harsh penalty, indeed, perhaps too harsh. And if someone experiences true guilt, death is nothing more than a release from that guilt. Rather, would it not be a greater punishment to force them to live the rest of their lives imprisoned without any control, with naught to do but continuously reconsider their actions and repent? I support your stance of removal of these oppressing people, but death seems like it should only be a worst-case-scenario solution.
DeleteJustin Magin (1st Pd) Strengths are weaknesses
ReplyDeleteThis critic would be correct that, in fact, Macbeth’s weaknesses are considered his strengths. This of course is a paradox because strengths are considered positive qualities, while weaknesses are believed to be traits disadvantageous to the beholder. In Macbeth’s case, his hubris causes his “strengths” to turn into weaknesses. We all grew up with the phrase, “too much of anything is bad.” This completely explains the paradox of how Macbeth’s strengths are actually his weaknesses. Macbeth has confidence, which originally made him a great war hero, but too much confidence led him to ignore the apparitions that lead to his beheading. Macbeth also had ambition, which drove him to succeed as a leader. Then, he heard his fortune from the witches, which led him to jump to conclusions that he must kill Duncan. Hus excessive ambition to be king proved to be the underlying motivation for his killing spree. SO, in the end, this paradox is explained by, the fact that, having too much of a strength can actually turn out to be a weakness.
Keara Klinge - 1st period
DeleteGood point about how anything in excess has negative effects. Macbeth's ambition is not healthy, but rather it consumes him.
Erin Eichenberger, p6- There certainly were some questionable actions by Macbeth that incline me to lose sympathy. I can kind of understand killing Banquo to defeat the prophecy, but his reaction to his wife's death, as you said, was odd. That and the senseless slaughter of Macduff's family made him irredeemable for me.
ReplyDeleteAlex Miller 2nd Period Good versus Evil
ReplyDeleteIn Macbeth there is a strong theme of how anyone can become evil when focused entirely on one's own desires. This suggests that Shakespeare believed that evil is a powerful force that can overcome any human being but I do not believe that he thought the root of evil were supernatural beings. I also don't believe that Shakespeare saw evil as the ultimate force because at the end of the play those who are good end up winning the battle. The story is seen as a tragedy since Macbeth is the main character and he dies but if it was from another character's perspective, such as Macduff, it would've been a comedy. Focusing on Macbeth solely, I do not believe Shakespeare saw evil as more powerful than good.
I agree with your opinion. Even if you look at other Shakespeare tragedies, good ultimately triumphs even though it may be at a heavy cost.
DeleteElijah Bader(2nd)-Alternate ending
ReplyDeleteMacbeth: The trees are moving in?
If I am going to die now I must die fighting,
but a mother born can’t kill me so maybe I’m safe.
(Everything flashes before Macbeth starting from the most resent to earliest events)
I have failed!
I followed my morals and I was happy,
I had just been named Thane of Cawdor
Now everything is ruined,
But how did this happen
Can I blame the witches, fate, my wife?
Or is it me.
Even if I die I will die doing what I think is right
(Macbeth now speaking to the messenger)
Let England know I surrender
I will come forward on my wrong doings
And face the consequences.
Brian Fischer (6): Good versus Evil
ReplyDeleteThe idea with good and evil in Macbeth isn’t that evil isn’t stronger than good, but rather that evil is more noteworthy and memorable than good. Our entire lives are structured around doing what is good, but stepping out of line and doing something evil is an aberration and is noticed. The fact that evil is taboo also adds to the allure and fascination surrounding it when it does happen. In extreme cases, such as Macbeth’s, these factors can even start to drag people into ruts of continuous evil deeds. An act of extreme goodness just doesn’t cause the same ripple as an equally extreme act of evil. People can take in and savor the goodness, but everything is thrown out of line when someone goes crazy with an evil deed. I don’t think Shakespeare saw evil as a stronger force than good, but rather a more murky and confounding one.
I agree, Shakespeare has an interesting comparison between good and evil as well as their consequences.
DeleteI agree with the fact that we always focus on the evil, and how noteworthy they are (something that many people don't think about). I think that it is important to really define to ourselves what we consider to be "good" and "evil".
DeleteGood and evil are truly all dependent upon perspective, but if choices are made with selfish intentions the rest of society will see them as evil choices.
DeleteHelen Foyle—Period 6—Good versus Evil
ReplyDeleteI believe there is somewhat of a fine line between what is defined as good and what is defined as evil. Both are extremely subjective, with roots in the argument of inherent human nature--as in whether humans are inherently good or evil. Where Shakespeare stands in this argument is fairly vague as, for a while, it seems as though Macbeth is a good man at heart, merely corrupted by ambition and greed. However, as the plot progressed, I began to see how the few details given about Macbeth’s past, such as how he “unseamed” an enemy soldier “from the nave to the chops, / And fixed his head upon [their] battlements.” (1.2.22-23) demonstrate how Macbeth may have had some evil qualities before he became a murderer of royalty.
I’d like to think that no baby is born with a desire to kill. Macbeth must have been born an innocent babe as well, spending his childhood learning the art of sword fighting and hearing tales of insatiable kings. Perhaps what sealed Macbeth’s fate in his becoming evil was his weakness and susceptibility to the influences around him, a very understandable and relatable characteristic. Shakespeare’s thoughts on whether evil is stronger than good are evident as Macbeth ultimately fails. His good is all but gone, devoured by a lust for power, yet not quite guilt free of his actions. As evil and insanity fully consume him, he is taken down by natural (in the sense of being justified) forces. While Duncan’s murder is seen as unnatural, for he was such a gracious man, Macbeth’s is acceptable. Unless a crazy plot twist fell upon the story of Macbeth, it is expected that he will fail and that his mortality would be taken from him, it is even foreshadowed in Act One. This allows us to follow the process of what leads a man to an evil that only results in his demise.
I like how you included the perspective of the grey area between good and evil. It's also interesting how you noted the account of Macbeth's violence on the battlefield before the audience even meets him.
DeleteI think the grey area that you included is very important. I do not believe that there is not just a black and white area.
DeleteChris Lacey 6 The Epitome of Sympathy
ReplyDeleteShakespeare has written Macbeth in a way for the reader to fully understand Macbeth's characterizations and motives. In the plot Macbeth transforms from a loyal soldier to a traitor and murderer. It would seem that there is not much value in his character, but as the audience we cannot help but sympathize with him. The way Shakespeare allows us to witness the context of his decisions changes how we view Macbeth. More and more of his actions can be attributed to fate more than his conscious decisions or a change in his moral compass. Many times throughout the play a curse is mentioned lifting more responsibility from him. Macbeth is human and he displays all aspects of the human nature, good and bad. These are aspects that are a part of all of us, although not to the extremes of Macbeth. For this reason we cannot simply give up on him or cast him out as a "bad man".
I agree, and humans are certainly not perfect. I also talked about fate pulling the strings on Macbeth, rather than his conscious decisions. In the end I still see him as a human gone distraught, and still deserves the sympathy of us.
DeleteI agree that Macbeth was not a bad man, but I disagree that anything supernatural truly directs his actions. Macbeth certainly makes choices based on his belief in the witches' apparitions and in his hallucinations, but I don't think it was just fate that organized his fall.
DeleteDiu Rahlan(p.6)- The Epitome of Sympathy
ReplyDeleteYes, Shakespeare does keep me from losing all sympathy for Macbeth. In the beginning of the play he was innocent and does not do anything bad or harmful to people. When the witches told him about his prophecies and his wife convincing him to kill Duncan, Macbeth become more and more aggressive and start killing innocent people. He kill Malcolm, Banquo, Lady Macduff and her son. These people are innocent and are his close friends but he kill them for wanting to be king and get what he want. When Lady Macbeth committed suicide he does not care about her and said that she was going to die soon or later. This shows that his heart is cold and his obsession to be king.
Gordon Ma - 6th Period
DeleteI agree, though I also think that people are not static beings. Given a host of environmental factors, people change just as Macbeth once used to be righteous and noble, his downfall and his "cold obsession" to be king weren't necessarily all his fault, in my opinion.
Macbeth ultimately made those choices and while he was influenced by the prophecies, the witches did not force him to kill anyone. Therefore, it is very hard for me to feel sympathy for Macbeth when he took unnecessary actions to fulfill a prophecy.
DeletePeriod 6
DeleteSo you are rea;;y saying thay Macbeth does lose your sympathy because he is cold hearted and a murderer.
Vickie Wang (2nd Period) - Good versus Evil
ReplyDeleteThough Shakespeare wrote many tragedies, he never (or only rarely) portrays evil as stronger than good. Evil and good are in a state of constant struggle, but at the end of the play, good ultimately triumphs. This leaves the audience with a sense of catharsis: although blood has been spilled in the course of the play (literally or figuratively), the audience is satisfied in knowing that the forces of evil will not continue to do harm.
For example, in Macbeth, no one is able to stop Macbeth in his bloody rampage and tyrannical rule. A prime example would be Malcolm, rightful heir to the throne, who laments the state of Scotland under Macbeth's rule but does not try to overthrow Macbeth for various reasons until the end of Act 4. However, once Malcolm and Macduff march to Macbeth's castle, good is able to triumph over evil. The tyrant is killed and the rightful king claims his throne.
Good and evil may at times appear to be evenly matched, but ultimately, good is more powerful.
Keara Klinge - 1st period
DeleteI agree. Even though this is a tragedy and a ton of characters die, good still wins out at the end. Although the urge to do evil won over over good inside Macbeth, the overall theme of the story is that it brought no good to him in the end, as depicted by the last act.
I agree completely. Shakespeare showed that the force of evil can never give you more than you will lose. Macbeth lost himself in spirit and in life because of his mistakes, and the forces of good led Macduff to victory and gave Malcolm both revenge and redemption.
DeleteChris Lacey 6
ReplyDeleteThere is definitely merit to the conclusion that even though all of Macbeth's actions have been terrible, the audience still reserves some sympathy for him.
Gordon Ma – 6th Period – The Epitome of Sympathy
ReplyDeleteFor some reason after finishing the play, I still end up feeling a little sympathetic for Macbeth. I think that this is because many of his actions were (evidently) not his fault – had he been surrounded by different people or told different things, his story may have turned out very differently. The witches especially played a big role in Macbeth’s downfall, beginning with planting the seed of murdering Duncan into Macbeth’s head and eventually tricking him into taking a series of unwanted actions: “And be those juggling fiends no more believed, that palter with us in a double sense, that keep the word of promise to our ear, and break it to our hope”. Also, Lady Macbeth was the one who instigated him into killing Duncan in the first place – had he married someone else, he may have lost the resolve to kill Duncan. Lastly, the idea that Macbeth actually had no control over his actions and fate was the one pulling the strings is an interesting idea. Once Macbeth killed Duncan, it was a slippery slope. Even he said himself that once he started killing, he had no choice but to continue doing so.
Austin Gain - 1st
DeleteEssentially Macbeth was just a pawn in everyone's game of chess. Macbeth did not have that much free will to go around. He feel back on superstition and the thoughts of others in order to make rational decisions.
that's interesting to think what would have happened if he had married someone else who wasn't as cold and calculating as Lady Macbeth is in the story.
DeleteAshley Siebelink
ReplyDeletePeriod 6
Strengths are Weaknesses
I think Macbeth’s strongest character trait would be his ambition and determination. Throughout the entirety of the story Macbeth has a set goal of becoming and staying king. Unfortunately this is also his weakness because he chose to do anything to achieve his goal, this includes murder and deception. The prophecy would be that he would become, didn’t say when or how, but if he just would have waited a while and put his ego aside, things would have gone a lot better for him. Also, if Lady Macbeth didn’t ‘hype’ Macbeth up and make this his first set goal by pushing, he would have been a much better ruler during the time he was really supposed to be king. Therefore his ambition and determination is a strength and also a weakness.
I agree. The way in which he became king was considered to be "unjust", so in a way, that does become his weakness. And although he becomes king, he is in a period of regret and fear, which doesn't really help him become happy while being king (which is what he wanted since the witches told him that he would be king).
DeleteLife and Death - Louis Jacobowitz, pd. 1
ReplyDeleteBy the end of the play, a strong parallel has been drawn between the previous Thane of Cawdor and Macbeth. Both of them were the Thanes of Cawdor, and both of them acted disloyal in a way that led to their downfall. The previous Thane of Cawdor betrayed his king by joining with the Norwegians, and was killed for his crime, but Macbeth went even further by killing his own king and replacing him on the throne, starting a power-hungry struggle that only ended up getting him killed. In both instances, the Thanes of Cawdor threw away the most valuable thing they had - their lives.
These lessons apply to real life just as much as they apply to Shakespeare's characters - after all, ambition is a natural aspect of human character. There are stories all over the place of robbers and drug dealers who do the things they do because they perceive positive rewards, only to end up ruining their lives. And it's a concept that has been applied to other mediums, stories, and contexts as well - in a specific example from the video game Persona 4, a police detective spends so much time searching for the car that killed his wife many years ago, he neglects his daughter and nearly ruins his relationship with the last of his family before he is brought to realize this by the player character. Human ambition is an omnipresent theme in society and media even today, and Macbeth and the Thane of Cawdor are far from the first to fall before it.
Kayla Curry pd.2 Yesss, I agree.
DeleteSirisha Karra (1st) - Good vs. Evil
ReplyDeleteAs many people have mentioned already, I think it is quite hard to distinguish the difference between "good" and "evil" in certain circumstances. I believe that what we classify as good and evil purely comes from society, and how we were brought up viewing things. If out society were to change, our definition of evil might complete change. In relation to the book, Shakespeare has a reputation of rarely allowing evil to win over good - always portraying the different circumstances and consequences for doing "evil".
I personally believe that Macbeth thought that what he was doing at first was wrong, but as he gained more and more power, he lost his line of thought and couldn't really distinguish what was wrong from right any longer. Shown through history, good and evil may be equally matched, but it really depends on who wins. I want to say that "good always prevails" and all the cliche stuff that we always hear, but I have to say that evil does sometimes come through to win, and that maybe the evil that comes through is what we consider to be good. Personally, I think it is hard to distinguish sometimes, and that is one of the fatal flaws that humans, whether it was Shakespeare's time or ours, face on a day to day basis (something we are completely unaware of sometimes).
Austin Gain - 1st
DeleteI very much agree with the fact that as Macbeth gained more power his train of thought was blurred. As a leader, or just a person in general, gains too much power, their perception of good vs. evil is damaged causing irrational judgment.
Brianna Bulgarino 2 Good versus Evil
ReplyDeleteI think Shakespeare thought that evil was stronger than the forces of good. Based on Macbeth’s demise, Shakespeare showed that evil will eventually win. No matter how hard a person tries to be good, evil will turn into something out of a person’s control. Macbeth showed all of the characteristics of a tragic hero. He was not completely evil or good, had potential to be great, was responsible for his own fate, and met a tragic death. Macbeth let his ambition and greed turn into evil which got the best of him. Shakespeare used Macbeth’s character to portray his idea that everyone has evil in them, but the evil may be sparked by ambition and greed or hidden by love and faith.
I agree with the how the fact that since Macbeth is a tragic hero, the force of evil will effect him greatly.
DeleteVictoria Wiktor (2) Good Versus Evil
ReplyDeleteIn Macbeth, there is a prominent motive of evil throughout the entire play. Shakespeare definitely had to think that evil was stronger than the forces of good. If Macbeth did not have any evil in it then it would not have been a tragedy. Everyone can be good or bad but I think that Shakespeare believed that most people have some sort of evil in their core that can be triggered by something to make it surface. In the beginning of the play I would not have considered Macbeth evil but once the play started to progress his greed and ambition got the best of him and he turned into someone completely different. Macbeth chose the worst path he could possibly take in order to fulfill the witches' prophecy showing his true intentions and spirit.
Elizabeth Vicario, pd 2
DeleteMacbeth certainly had two sides to him, but I found his excessively dynamic nature kind of unrealistic, since the progression seemed so swift. It seems unlikely that anyone who so recently loved his wife would feel nothing at her suicide.
Elizabeth Vicario, pd 2
DeleteMacbeth certainly had two sides to him, but I found his excessively dynamic nature kind of unrealistic, since the progression seemed so swift. It seems unlikely that anyone who so recently loved his wife would feel nothing at her suicide.
The Epitome of Sympathy - Keara Klinge - period 1
ReplyDeleteI lost my sympathy for Macbeth once he started acting of his own free will and acting with excessive arrogance. This was when he killed Lady Macduff and her son, because it was a murder not fueled by self-preservation or fear. He started the play with reasonable suspicion and doubt about the supernatural, and he did not want to kill Duncan, or Banquo or Macduff or any other person. It was only through the persuasion of his wife that he turned into the murderous man Malcolm and Macduff know him as by the last act.
The real tragedy is not necessarily about the awful things that the world inflicts on Macbeth but rather the degeneration of his morals. We watch as someone who could have lived a long and happy life willingly takes more and more violent measures to reach greater heights, powered by his own ambition. He loses God in the process, and we watch as he turns into a man who is deemed demonic.
Dylan Kruesi (Period 1) – Good versus Evil
ReplyDeleteAlthough Shakespeare saw evil as a force beyond human understanding, I do not believe that he felt it was stronger than the forces of good. Macbeth, a proud and honorable man, was turned evil through selfish thoughts and misguidance and his fatal flaw was that he became too proud and confident to understand the repercussions of his actions. The way Shakespeare turned a once decent man into a villainous character, which inevitably lead to his fall, is why this play is classified as a tragedy even though the death of Macbeth was well deserved. The reader is actually supposed to feel relieved when the main character dies, which is a rare quality in a tragedy since most of the time we feel sympathetic towards a tragic flaw. This play centered almost entirely on the force of evil, but after all was said and done the force of good prevailed.
Morgan Coyle (2nd) Good Versus Evil
ReplyDeleteJudging from Macbeth’s hallucinations and Lady Macbeth’s sleepwalking and eventual suicide, Shakespeare did not believe evil to be a greater force than good. If Shakespeare believed that evil could overcome goodness, the Macbeths would not have been tormented by guilt, because their virtue would have succumbed completely to the evil inside of them. When Macbeth said that “we but teach/Bloody instructions which, being taught, return/to plague th’inventor,” Shakespeare implied that he himself believed that evil would haunt the evil-doer, which shows that evil cannot reign supreme, because those who commit evil will be punished for it, which would somewhat right the wrong. Even if Shakespeare did not explicitly express, or perhaps even know himself, his own beliefs about good versus evil, it is evident in his writing that he believes that good is a stronger force than evil.
I like how you pointed out that those who are evil cannot reign supreme since they would be punished for it.
DeleteYesss, I agree.
DeleteAustin Gain - 1st - Alternate Ending
ReplyDeleteIn a sense, the three witches at the beginning of the play, in my opinion, were the main root of all the problems that plagued Macbeth and Scotland as a whole. To begin the play, the opening scene would portray Macbeth and Banquo returning from battle in the name of King Duncan. Instead of Macbeth meeting the three witches who tell him of the prophecy, Macbeth heads on his way, completely ignorant of any prophecy that is supposed to occur. Macbeth still becomes Thane of Cawdor due to the treason committed by the former Thane, but Macbeth sees no reason to become King of Scotland, due to the fact that there is no prophecy guiding Macbeth. Lady Macbeth then has no reason to encourage Macbeth to kill Duncan, thus preventing Macbeth from feeling the guilt and misery from murdering Duncan. Macbeth is no longer the feared tyrant of Scotland, so Duncan's children, Donalbain and Malcolm, have no reason to flee Scotland. Macduff also sees no reason to take revenge on anyone due to the fact that his family was never murdered by Macbeth. By the end of the play, Duncan, Banquo, Lady Macbeth, Macbeth, and anyone else who may have died by Macbeth's tyranny are alive and well. The tragedy of Macbeth has no longer occurred, and in the end, this tragedy has turned into a Shakespearian comedy due to the hilarious nature of the Porter.
Molly McEvoy(2nd)- Good v. Evil
ReplyDeleteThe topic of good and evil has been around since the beginning of time. Many people enjoy the belief that no matter what good always wins, as is portrayed in comic books and other forms of crime fighting entertainment. However, there is a small cynic in everyone that enjoys the idea of darkness and evil things. Dark, powerful music and performances speak more than light and airy ones, appealing to a bigger audience and getting across lessons easier.
Due to this, I do believe that Shakespeare believed that the forces of evil were stronger than those of good. As shown in most of his tragedies, while the 'good' wins out in the end, evil runs a muck and does far more than good ever could. As seen in Macbeth, the evil inside of Macbeth overpowers the good, causing him to do unthinkable deeds. Actions like these go to show that evil is stronger then good.
Elizabeth Vicario, pd. 2- Alternate Ending
ReplyDeleteLady Macbeth has clearly reached the end in the first scene of act 5; even her doctor thinks that her mental state is out of the reach of medicine. She proves herself capable of suicide in the end, and she would have the audience, and Macbeth, think that she is capable of murder. This is why an interesting plot twist would be for her to murder Macbeth herself. She might feel a cathartic moment in killing the monster that she had a hand in creating, and would certainly still fulfill the prophecy of "no man of woman born." The act would also draw attention back to the castle, where it began, instead of the battlefield and the political turmoil happening outside the palace. Lady Macbeth would probably still kill herself, but her original suicide seemed a little out of place to me; since Macbeth had minimal reaction to it I found the scene a bit unnecessary. This way, the story might have come full circle but with an unexpected twist.
Elizabeth Vicario, pd. 2- Alternate Ending
ReplyDeleteLady Macbeth has clearly reached the end in the first scene of act 5; even her doctor thinks that her mental state is out of the reach of medicine. She proves herself capable of suicide in the end, and she would have the audience, and Macbeth, think that she is capable of murder. This is why an interesting plot twist would be for her to murder Macbeth herself. She might feel a cathartic moment in killing the monster that she had a hand in creating, and would certainly still fulfill the prophecy of "no man of woman born." The act would also draw attention back to the castle, where it began, instead of the battlefield and the political turmoil happening outside the palace. Lady Macbeth would probably still kill herself, but her original suicide seemed a little out of place to me; since Macbeth had minimal reaction to it I found the scene a bit unnecessary. This way, the story might have come full circle but with an unexpected twist.
Sanjay Akkina (Period 2) - Good Versus Evil
ReplyDeleteShakespeare definitely saw evil as a force which is stronger than good. Initially, Macbeth was a good person who followed the orders of his King but as soon as he learned about the prophecy from the three witches, he became much darker. When he deciding whether or not to kill Duncan, he has chosen the evil force causing King Duncan to die. After the kings death, Macbeth's personality gets much darker where it comes to a point when he doesn't care if his wife killed herself. Shakespeare could have stopped Macbeth from killing so many people and instead made him decide not to. But instead, Macbeth kills many people with the use of his three assassins. Looking at this, Shakespeare definitely saw the force of evil as something much stronger than the force of good.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGood versus Evil Kayla Curry pd 2
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Macbeth, I now see why Shakespeare said he saw evil as the source behind human understanding, because without evil we would not know good and vice versa. In Macbeth I think that Shakespeare saw evil as stronger than good because of what haooened throughout the story. With Lady Macbeth wanting the pwoer, which is bad vecause she cares about nothing but that. Then She convinces Macbeth to kill one person. Not all who are in power, he is overcome with bad things he has done and now seems to not want to stop doing it because they are in the way of the crown, as if one crown was not enough. I really do think bad is more contagious than good becuase it is easer and in this book they could not get it out.
Johnny Huang, Period 1
ReplyDeleteGood versus Evil
It is very hard in life to be able to truly distinguish good from evil. Life is not as clear cut, and it is a matter of perspective whether something is good or evil. Life in general is more of a grey area, where every choice you make forces you to take compromises. But this is not really the case in Macbeth. Shakespeare ultimately portrays good as more powerful than evil. Macbeth can be summed as the evil in this story, portraying murderous intentions and a strong lust for power. Malcom serves as a foil to Macbeth for this reason. He is the true heir to the throne, and he is able to triumph over Macbeth’s tyranny. Macbeth at its simplest is a battle of good versus evil, and in the end good won.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteBarbara TeageMarch 19, 2015 at 9:42 PM
Good Versus Evil (2ndpd)
When you read the play you will understand that Shakespeare saw more evil then beyond the understanding of human nature. Eventhough he thinks that good balance out evil and can tell you the difference between right from wrong, people will tend towards evil quicker than good becaus it easer as you will see in the world of Macbeth. Like we read in th play Macbeth turned towards evil because it go him what he wanted at his own rate , an time. Shakespeare shows us that even good person can turn dark it's in human nature.
Kevin Gao (period 2)
ReplyDeleteThe epitome of sympathy
One of the reasons why this play is so compelling is that we expect to sympathize with the tragic hero, as his dignity slowly deteriorates as the story progresses. That being said, Shakespeare does not keep me from losing all sympathy for Macbeth. Any amount of sympathy that I had around act 2 or 3 is all lost in act 4 and 5. Macbeth always had the choice to not listen to Lady Macbeth to kill Duncan. I feel sorry for Macbeth after he goes through with the murder, because he is so shocked from the after effects of killing, and his wife didn’t do anything to help him get through it. This is the point where I did feel a bit of sympathy for our hero. However, he certainly could have restrained from killing Banquo; from this point on, it is hard to feel sorry for him, because he has become for independent in his decisions to kill. He has become more and more consumed by his constant paranoia and ambition that he would stop at nothing to keep his position as king, even killing innocents in the process. He has thrown away all of his old values and upholds nothing but his power as king, and it is because of this change in behavior, I find myself showing no sympathy for our tragic hero.
Walker Morrell (Journal 9) 1st Period- Good Versus Evil
ReplyDeleteShakespeare uses Macbeth to show how strong the temptations of evil can be, yet how in the end, good is ultimately stronger. The Elizabethan world concept would have been destroyed if Shakespeare showed evil conquering good. Throughout most of the play, this is how it looks. Macbeth has used evil ways to become king and he continues to kill while he maintains his power. However, Act 5 reverses this and ‘good’ begins to win. Macbeth suffers a tragic death and Shakespeare shows that like it should be, good will eventually conquer evil. Shakespeare just spent most of the play showing the flaws in human nature and how powerful the evil can be. This buildup of the power in evil actually makes the ending an even stronger example of how powerful good can be since it has to defeat Macbeth. Macduff violently proclaims this in Act 5, Scene 8, lines 25-28, saying, “We’ll have thee, as our rarer monsters are, Painted upon a pole, and underwrit, “Here you may see the tyrant.”
Divya Agarwal Pd 1 Good vs Evil
ReplyDeleteI believe that Shakespeare viewed good and evil and equal forces and that good was not always destined to win. He definitely does not think that evil is the stronger force- if that was the case then Banquo would have succumbed to the same forces that claimed Macbeth. Rather, it makes more sense to realize that good and evil are both literally and figuratively always in battle. The force of good is definitely not stronger than evil because if it was, many wrong doers would not be who they are today. They would have been able to resist temptations and in modern times, I believe it would insinuate the lowering of the drugs problem etc.
I agree in that Macbeth is filled with hubris, and so his attitude leads to his downfall.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHeavenlee Burt (Period 6) -The Epitome of Sympathy
ReplyDeleteHonestly Shakespeare didn't keep me from losing sympathy for Macbeth. He became a vicious and cruel man. It was already seen on the battlefield that he was capable of murder in a battle field;
"And fortune, on his damnèd quarrel smiling,
Showed like a rebel’s whore. But all’s too weak,
For brave Macbeth—well he deserves that name—
Disdaining fortune, with his brandished steel,
Which smoked with bloody execution,"
But it wasn't obvious he was capable of cold blooded murder until he disposed of his King, his "O valiant cousin". Even then he felt a tremendous guilt for his horrible deed, also it is clear that he was manipulated by his power hungry wife. Although he murdered he in cold blood he did not lose my sympathy. Macbeth became King and he ruled until his unease and suspicious of his former friend gripped him. When he decided to murder Banquo my sympathy for this tragic "hero" wavered. I started to question the truth to this man being a hero but even though my sympathy wavered it did not crumble as I could see a reason for his desire to be rid of Banquo. He needed the assurance that his throne wasn't taken over and Banquo's suspicion didn't get out of hand.
Even after the fact of Banquo's death Macbeth saw his apparition and it was clear he was still very capable of feeling some guilt even subconsciously. Now what really started to make my sympathy towards Macbeth disperse was after the scene of Macbeth visiting the witches for more half-truths. He became overconfident, enraptured in his own self-confidence as he believed "No man that's born of woman" could ever harm him. His gluttony did not deter my sympathy, nor his bloodlust, what did was his stupidity. With these prophecies he made many grievances, one being the pointless murder of Macduff's family. With this last unnecessary kill I know that Macbeth was officially lost and so was all sympathy I've had for him.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMeredyth Albright - Second Period
DeleteI never completely lost sympathy for Macbeth, either. I wonder if watching the life play would make us feel any differently.
Julio Derteano - Alternate end
ReplyDeletePeriod 1
If Macbeth had a more realistic sense of his abilities to handle murdering the king, his cousin, then he could have stayed in his fine path of being a war hero for Scotland. His hubris essentially leads to his downfall. Once MacBeth kills Duncan, his humanity is completely destroyed and his mental state begins to shift to madness. By this Macbeth is obviously unable to be an efficient leader. If not for Macbeth's over confidence of his own abilities he would have become a person of good with honor and many achievements from the battle field. With this change Macbeth would have been a story of his honor rather than the corruption of his humanity and mind.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBettylenah Njaramba - Period 2 - Strengths are Weaknesses
ReplyDeleteMacbeth obtained several strengths that I believe lead him to the position of power that he acquired. However, with his many strengths were accompanied by his strong ambition and hubris which led to his downfall. I believe Macbeth had good intentions but influence from his peers and his desire for power overpowered his moral values. Macbeth's ambition supports the themes of "Anybody is capable of evil" and also "People will do anything to achieve their goals."
I also found this prompt interesting because Macbeth's death could be considered somewhat of a paradox because he misinterpreted the witch's fate as him being basically invincible when they were really informing him of his downfall.
Meredyth Albright – 2nd Period – The Epitome of Sympathy
ReplyDeleteAristotle argued that a bad man cannot be the principal character of a tragedy; however I do not think that this completely applies to Macbeth. Macbeth is not inherently evil, unlike Lady Macbeth seems, particularly in the first act of the play. Shakespeare kept me from losing all sympathy for Macbeth in spite of his increasing viciousness, because, as an outside observer of Macbeth’s life, I am able to see his viciousness and blood-thirsty insanity unfurl, layer by layer. It is clear that his prime mistake was murdering King Duncan, and that his life went downhill very quickly. In Macbeth’s soliloquy, “She should have died hereafter. There would have been a time for such a word. Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to day to the last syllable of recorded time, and all our yesterdays have lighted fools the way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” (Act Five Scene Five Lines 17-28) it is clear to see that Macbeth is so fed up with being conflicted and torn between his own mental illness and moral convolutions, that he has decided that life means nothing; that there is no objective right or wrong, that everything is meaningless. I had lost most sympathy for Macbeth before then, but when I read that soliloquy, I realized the drastic extent to which Macbeth is broken inside, and regained sympathy.