knock knock jokes

I found it amusing to discover that Shakespeare may be the instigator of knock knock jokes. At the very opening of act II, scene III in Macbeth, there is a knocking at the gate. While the porter goes to answer it, he is basically telling knock knock jokes. I went on Wikipedia to see if I could find the origin of knock knock jokes, but it remains unknown. There may be the possibility that they stemmed from Shakespeare's Macbeth. On Wikipedia (if it’s to be trusted), it gives the meaning of each of the porter’s satires for each knock knock joke he makes. Apparently, he is imagining that he is the porter to the gates of hell and is welcoming people in through the gates. Each joke is made in reference to people of various occupations. I just thought that it was interesting how Shakespeare more or less uses the same types of jokes that we have today.

Emilia's Questionable Role in Othello...

So I know this is something we touched on at least in our section, but maybe not everyone has considered it yet.  I’m wondering what our reactions are to Emilia’s role in Othello?  I mean, she is undoubtedly Desdemona’s close (instant) friend, and doesn’t seem to be playing a part in Iago’s scandal, yet she still steals the scarf for him.  Sure, she claims she has no idea why he wanted the scarf and that she was just following his request, but really, what was she thinking?  Who just steals their friend’s scarf for their husband and doesn’t even bother questioning why the heck he would want it?  Maybe this all has to do with obedience and the fact that it possible was inappropriate to question the intentions and actions of one’s husband at the time?  All I know is I would be extremely mind boggled if my boyfriend randomly BEGGED me to steal a scarf from my friend.  Perhaps she is one of those girls who loves drama and just wanted to steal it to see what would come out of it, or maybe she secretly had it in for Desdemona and wanted to see trouble arise.  I can’t imagine she would have had any idea what her twisted, wacko husband was planning, but I suppose there’s a chance.. Thoughts?

Guilt in Macbeth

I think it is interesting to examine how guilt in Macbeth drives the plot of the latter part of the play, specifically by comparing Macbeth and Lady Macbeth. Lady Macbeth equates guilt with weakness and femininity early on in the play when she asks to feel no guilt over the planned murder of Duncan. However, it is Macbeth the masculine character that questions the plot because of his loyalty to his king, suggesting that he feels some guilt. Additionally, Lady Macbeth puts on a more convincing show for Macduff after Duncan is killed, but Macbeth is so affected that he messily tries to cover up his crime, making Macduff suspicious of him. Lady Macbeth is also ashamed and unsympathetic of Macbeth's guilt, chiding him that water will get rid of the blood when Macbeth is bothered by the stains left by Duncan's murder and trying to stop his raving at the sight of Banquo's ghost. However, I would argue that Lady Macbeth cannot escape her nature or her guilt, but that she is trying to suppress it and it is simply dormant. Even when she rubs the red of the blood off, her skin is still red from the rubbing, and therefore the mark of her involvement is not gone. Later, her guilt further manifests itself in her subconscious when she is sleepwalking. It is suggested later that her guilt drove her to commit suicide. Macbeth's guilt drives him not to attack himself, but others. Almost trying to rationalize his actions, Macbeth projects on others, expecting the people around him to betray him. His paranoid fears that the witches' prophecy that Banquo's heirs will be kings will come true cause Macbeth to hire killers to murder Banquo, and his guilt over that is shown when he sees Banquo's ghost at the feast. Any other thoughts on how guilt affects the viewing of Macbeth?

female names in macbeth

Ok, so I was interested in what others might think of this little detail from Macbeth. Why is it that this is a play where females play a large role, but Shakespeare refuses to give them any names? Lady Macbeth and the Witches have a huge role in actions taken by all characters in this play. For a play that emphasizes the importance of woman characters I am confused why they are not given any actual names. A few of ideas that I had: 1) Lady Macbeth controls Macbeth or at least has strong influence on his actions. So Shakespeare might possibly be connecting her identity to Macbeths, therefore sharing the blame between the two of them. 2) Because females have such a prominent role in this play, which might offend some males at the time, this was Shakespeare’s way of removing their identities. This could help satisfy the male egos that would be offended by such strong female presences within the play. 3) Lady Macbeth is a common way to refer to a woman of stature during the time this play was written or for when it what set. If that’s the case then I have obviously over thought this whole name thing. Let me know what you think.

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.