Masculinity in Macbeth

There is much masculinity shown throughout Macbeth. Macbeth is a very violent play and there is much killing and murdering going on so the men can gain masculinity for each person killed. Men sometimes murder in order to show how powerful he can possibly be. Men also want to prove to their wives or loved ones how powerful they are. I think that there are other ways in which men can so masculinity, however Shakespeare doesn’t show how in this play. Instead he creates a play in which a man goes around murdering innocent people in order for him to have power and become king. By killing these men and not earning the power and becoming king Macbeth looks cowardly. Professor Britland said in lecture that blood binds men and they earn respect for each other. How can blood bind men if they are killing each other left and right? I think the only way that men can earn respect by killing is by self-defense. If someone attacks a man and that man kills the person going after him I would have a lot more respect for him. First of all by defending yourself when someone tries to kill you deserves the most respect. By doing this it shows toughness, alertness, and masculinity. I cannot see how one can have respect by killing someone behind their back, like Macbeth did to Duncan. If he wants to earn respect he should have challenged him to a fight. By doing this and winning he not only would earn respect and his masculinity, but he would have also earned to be king. We cannot say that Lady Macbeth has earned respect either. She helped the plot to kill Duncan. By doing this she also becomes cowardly. There are many different ways to earn respect, but killing in a cowardly way is not one of them.

the three witches: about as clear as case law

Okay so back to my love of the supernatural…there’s one thing I’ve noticed about the witches that has lead me to a whole lot of contemplation.

Why did they go into so much detail about Macbeth’s death and not his rise to power? They gave many clues as to what and how things would take place to precede his death but when they first meet Macbeth to tell him of his advancement of titles and power, they say so little. They could have easily said “Hey you’re going to become king by killing the king…here’s how you do it” or “hey you’re going to become king…but don’t kill him because otherwise you’re going to become one of the greatest literary villains of time. And he’ll die of a tragic accident in like a week anyway”. But seriously why? I can’t really think of anything quite yet; I’ll probably have to reread those sections. Thoughts guys? I mean granted Macbeth did ask specific-ish questions about his impending downfall but he also tried to ask them in the beginning.

My other question concerns Hecate. Was she like pissed off or was it kind of like one of those…”Really guys? Really? Did you have to go and paint on the walls? I gave you crayons and finger paints and lots of paper and you had to go and draw on the walls. Well fine, let’s clean it up and then we can bake cookies.” I know, I know, she wasn’t exactly all June Cleaver, and this isn’t Leave it to Beaver but I don't get a sense of like true anger besides what the witches alude to. I didn’t really get the sense that she was all that upset with them and beyond the fact that she came into scold them what’s her purpose? She comes into tell them to clean up their act and right their wrongs (again an –ish) and nothing else. I really don’t see a role for her. Which makes me wonder if she’s actually a terrifically important character and I’m missing something huge. Help!

Richard: Love him or hate him?

In lecture the question was asked, "Why does Shakespeare turn Richard into such a villain?" This is a good point to look at because who is he a villain too and what are the readers supposed to feel? We can understand that Richard is a terrible guy for killing so many for so little reason sometimes. He is a murderer, and what makes it worse is that in the play we are shown signs that he is also pretty intellectual which makes the killings even worse. He should be looked at as a terrible character, yet after reading it you can almost feel sympathy for him. He does these terrible things but is it because its predetermined? Margaret brings in predestination in lines from act 1, scene 3, that make seem like maybe this isn't all Richard's fault. Or it can be the fact we feel bad for just the overall person he is, and how he can't see these terrible things he does as being bad. He feels peace makes man weak, how can anyone feel any sympathy for that is crazy to think, but reading the play throughout it's hard to keep that set idea that he is beyond horrible and a little sympathy creeps into my mind. In the end, I may feel a little sympathy for him, but i would never want to see him on the streets.

Witches In Macbeth

I feel that the witches play a very important role in Macbeth. The represent greed, lust, and darkness. In the beginning of the film we can see just how dark they are. The audience sees them taking eyes out of statues, spray-painting red on their eyes; all of the statues are of the Virgin Mary.
In the beginning when they are meeting they ask when they should meet again, “When shall we three meet again? In thunder, lightning, or in the rain?” All three of these environments are dark, cruel atmospheres. This gives the audience the idea of what these witches are here for. They say they want to meet Macbeth, but they don’t explain why they will meet with Macbeth. This confuses me, are they just randomly picking Macbeth for no good reason, is it just random? When they meet with Macbeth they seduce him into this greedy, lustful character. His greed is for power and for this power he needs to become violent and kill. These witches cause all the violence because they are greedy, lustful, and full of dark

macbeth's self fufilling prophecy

I propose that if Macbeth had not heard the witches’ prophecies in the beginning of the play he would not have killed Duncan, and most likely would have been fine with the position as the new Thane of Cawdor. However, Macbeth allows the prophecies’ to completely control the direction his life takes.
I am a psychology major so naturally I am biased to this point of view… but I think that Macbeth’s fate was mainly a product of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Although some of the witches apparitions that come true are purely supernatural such as their warnings that Macbeth would be safe until Birnam Wood moved to Dunsane Hill and that he would not be harmed by none of woman born( and all the other prophecies in that scene.) I believe that Macbeths killing of Duncan Banquoe and Macduff’s wife and children are the result of Macbeths allowance of the witches prophecies (that he would become king and that Banquo’s children would eventually gain the throne) to completely manifest themselves as absolute reality in his mind and his inability to realize that he still had the power to choose his actions. Macbeth’s actions can be paralleled with the ideas in the Thomas Theorem the root principal in self fulfilling prophecy explains that: “people do not react only to the situations they are in, but also, and often primarily, to the way they perceive the situations and to the meaning they assign to these situations. Therefore, their behavior is determined in part by their perception and the meaning they ascribe to the situations they are in, rather than by the situations themselves. Once people convince themselves that a situation really has a certain meaning, regardless of whether it actually does, they will take very real actions in consequence.” (Wikipedia) Similarly, it doesn’t matter whether or not the witches prophecies in the beginning of the play were true or if the witches had just turned out to be three crazy homeless ladies speaking in tongues that were only in the play for that one scene…Macbeth would have fundamentally carried out the same actions.

Ghosts - I apologize it's kinda long but hopefully entertaining

I love a good mystery; I’m a big fan of Sherlock Holmes. And I'm also inerested in folklore, ghost legends etc. So *poof* ghost hunter (not really - I jest). To me, the biggest mystery in Hamlet is who the ghost is. Is it really his father or is it someone else? The entire play kinda rests on this one fact. It just so happens that I started to read a book titled Lore of the Ghost. This gave some really interesting insights into ghosts and I noticed some similarities to the play. So let’s start at the beginning – Why do ghosts haunt the living? According to the book ghosts “returned in England to request masses to be said for their souls [or they could not go to heaven]…because their personal affairs had been left in confusion when they died, legal injustices, revenge [ghost would often take the form of the victim of a murder seeking retribution] …those who had died tragically, especially suicides...” My next bit of discussion focuses on the legend of The Wild Hunt. For those of you that don’t know who or what the The Wild Hunt is, here’s a bit of background. “The Wild Hunt is the generic term for the apparition of a huntsman or group of huntsmen riding black horses and usually accompanied by a pack of phantom hounds”. The myth has its origin in Scandinavia, mainly Norway. It is usually not seen but instead heard from the sky. “Wherever it appeared the Hunt was an ominous sign portending death or disaster…” Because of its Scandinavian roots, the leader of the Hunt often shares the characteristics of the Norse god Odin. Anytime Odin is seen leading the huntsmen it usually preceded war, plague, and “death of all who witnessed the terrifying scene”. The leader of the hunt is generally someone of historical importance and depends on the culture or heritage. For Denmark, the head Huntsmen is thought to be Valdemar Atterdag (he was king of Denmark from 1340-1375 and brought it from the depths of great poverty to even greater prosperity). Much of what is believed about the lore is taken from Norway, Germany and England.
Okay…now for the connections. Looking at all the information here, it can be easy to argue that the ghost is King Hamlet. If we go on the assumption of Claudius killing the King (c’mon…Scar did it in The Lion King – if Disney can do it then why not…which stems another thought: Simba = Hamlet? I digress) then King Hamlet could be a ghost looking for legal justice due to his tragic death by ‘murther’…murder…intentionally killed by someone else, whatever suits you. So there’s one point. Upon his death King Hamlet could have become the leader of The Wild Hunt (though if Buffy the Vampire Slayer literature is correct, the leader must be killed and he who killed him is then the new leader – eh) and is now back to wreck some havoc on his kingdom that has wandered astray. He appears in the beginning and then everyone really starts to go crazy and everything goes to hell. He is “an ominous sign of portending death or disaster” and Hamlet is a tragedy. Point two.
Now for arguments against. The ghost could just as easily be a representation of all the tragedy that is to come; perhaps a leader of The Wild Hunt that has no connection to Denmark. The Norwegian army is waiting to invade the castle/Denmark, and we know this from act 1 scene 1 when the watchmen are discussing the current situation of Denmark. The origin of The Wild Hunt is based on Norwegian folk lore. Point one. The last argument doesn’t have much connection to lore. Sometimes people see things they want to see. Hamlet could desperately be wanting to see his father. So he sees a ghost (but why does everyone else?) and hopes the ghost will give him answers. Point two.
So there you have it. Based on the research I did this could be a debate of epic proportions…or not. Anyway, it was something interesting to think about. I’d love to know what you guys think or if you have any other ethereal connections you’d like to make (I haven’t got that far in the play yet to make any more connections). If you have any questions about ghosts or ghostly traits you find later in the play, I’d be happy to check the book. Or you can just tell me that this was extremely way too long. One last thing to add is that this isn’t the only place you could connect Shakespeare to The Wild Hunt. According to the book I’m reading, “In the Merry Wives of Windsor…Shakespeare has Falstaff impersonate Herne...” Herne the Hunter is one of the leaders of the Wild Hunt in English folklore. In Ireland and Lowland Scotland, The Wild Hunt is called the Fairy Rade. When I read this immediately thought of Oberon and his ‘brood’ that would hunt through the forest.

Love in Romeo and Juliet

Though the play is often referred to as a romantic tragedy, I think it is easy to see Romeo and Juliet’s relationship not as a tragic, star-crossed true love, but rather as an immature, sexual love. Romeo and Juliet meet, fall in love, and commit suicide in the name of love all in three days. When they first meet there is no time during which they become better acquainted and learn to appreciate each other’s characters. Instead, they fall in love with each other’s looks, sighting each other’s beauty as the reason for their affection. They have no time to build a companionship; on the contrary, their love is solely the lust of two children. Like children, they act impulsively, marrying too hastily and not thinking about the consequences of their actions. It is possible that Shakespeare was attempting to ridicule love by having this fatal relationship occur in such a short amount of time, and wanted to portray love as something unhealthy if it happens too hurriedly without a strong basis.