To me, Macbeth doesn't have any outstanding redeeming quality. His first big quality is his military exploits, but this oubviously not of big importance like in Beowulf. Then, his second quality, 'legendary' morality and loyalty is much too easily overthrown by his own personal ambitions. In contrast, Banquo seems much more of a moral character. Maybe, on the play level, Macbeth is just an excuse that Shakespeare uses to display the qualities of the actual kings's ancestor (aka Banquo)? I wonder if I would prefer a more archetypal character -- either good or evil. I think what fustrates me the most is his own hypocrisy and passive undescision, which is very much like Victor Frankenstein's. Victor and Macbeth appear to me as very feeble characters conserning their own resolutions. I would rather have character with stronger wills, even if they do have strong internal conflicts...
It is true that Macbeth defies archetype, as does Victor Frankenstein. It seems, here, that we are dealing not so much with a hero in the classic sense, as we see in Beowulf, an epic, as with morally ambiguous characters, which is the stuff of tragedy and of romantic literature. I'm not sure that I agree, however, that his military exploits serve as less of a quality than they do in Beowulf, because we are dealing, largely, with a similar type of society--warrior, comitatus, feudal in type, so that these qualities make Macbeth larger than life, as they did Beowulf. However, Shakespeare, as I indicated before is going down a very different path.
Conserning the military exploits, what I ment by saying it wasn't as important is that Shakespeare focuses on Macbeth's emotional conflict, whereas his military power is only part of context in the play. Compared to Othello, his warior's strength isnt displayed all along the play, during the 1st act and the begining of 2nd one.It seems to me that his military status isnt as important as his emotional conflicts.
Macbeth's morality is based on his fear of repercution. Is being moral because of cowardness a quality ? In my sense, not at all. This means his suppoesed 'quality' does not pepend on him, but on the rest of society and the way it will react. He is like a sheep that follows the flow -- is THAT a quality ? His morals and action depend on his master (the king vs Lady M). What would happen if he didnt have a master ?
An important characteristic of Shakespearean theater, and one of the reasons it is so appreciated, is the ability of the audience to connect with the characters of the plays. Here, as in many other Shakespearean plays, Macbeth is not described as a hero, but as a man; a man just as capable as many others of committing errors, having doubts, or act impulsively. It would therefore be inaccurate to judge Macbeth only through his "qualities" and "flaws".
True, a tragic hero must be at the base a good person and, as such, a man with flaws. Nonetheless he was considered at first a hero, and we don't necessarily mean hero in the traditional sense when we say hero, do we? let's think about it!
To me Macbeth starts off as a respectable character, but the more we read about him the more we realize that he is not a moral man, unlike Banquo who is very respectable and who is loyal to his king and kingdom even after little speech of the the three witches. I feel as though Macbeth is too easily influenced by his wife and in a way she represents the hallucinations he has had. She represents the dagger he sees before he kills the king, because it is Lady Macbeth that pushes Macbeth into doing it and the dagger, in a way, also influences Macbeth into murdering the king. Also when he sees Banquo as a ghost it is as if Macbeth is seeing the horrors he has done and the crimes he has committed and Lady Macbeth is the reason all of these horrible things started happening. I guess what I'm trying to say is that Lady Macbeth in mirrors Macbeth's hallucinations in reality and Macbeth could just say no to her and none of these images would exist but he is too easily influenced and this cancels out any chance he could get in being a respectable character.
I believe that Macbeth is a respectable character but that he is however, very influenced by the people around him, and especially his "partner in greatness" (Lady Macbeth) and so i would say that he doesn't evolve but on the contrary he in a way regresses. This is what also makes Macbeth's evolution through the book. He is at first a great man, very loyal to his king and follows his morals and values even though he wants to be more than just thane of Glamis, he has the ambition but he cannot have both morals and ambition, he must make a choice which make him what he becomes later on. But we see as we go through the acts that he is the kind of person that gets caught up in his own mess very quickly without being able to get out of it without making the mess even bigger. Furthermore we see that the more power he gets, the less respectable he is (which i would guess is the notion of "lesser and greater" here). The fact that he becomes almost power hungry is what makes him almost repulsive by the climax of the play.
The objects mirror Lady Macbeth, I believe, rather than the other way around, but that's a good connection. And, yes, definitely, we see Macbeth regress rather than progress during the course of the play!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo me, Macbeth doesn't have any outstanding redeeming quality. His first big quality is his military exploits, but this oubviously not of big importance like in Beowulf. Then, his second quality, 'legendary' morality and loyalty is much too easily overthrown by his own personal ambitions. In contrast, Banquo seems much more of a moral character. Maybe, on the play level, Macbeth is just an excuse that Shakespeare uses to display the qualities of the actual kings's ancestor (aka Banquo)?
ReplyDeleteI wonder if I would prefer a more archetypal character -- either good or evil. I think what fustrates me the most is his own hypocrisy and passive undescision, which is very much like Victor Frankenstein's. Victor and Macbeth appear to me as very feeble characters conserning their own resolutions. I would rather have character with stronger wills, even if they do have strong internal conflicts...
It is true that Macbeth defies archetype, as does Victor Frankenstein. It seems, here, that we are dealing not so much with a hero in the classic sense, as we see in Beowulf, an epic, as with morally ambiguous characters, which is the stuff of tragedy and of romantic literature. I'm not sure that I agree, however, that his military exploits serve as less of a quality than they do in Beowulf, because we are dealing, largely, with a similar type of society--warrior, comitatus, feudal in type, so that these qualities make Macbeth larger than life, as they did Beowulf. However, Shakespeare, as I indicated before is going down a very different path.
ReplyDeleteConserning the military exploits, what I ment by saying it wasn't as important is that Shakespeare focuses on Macbeth's emotional conflict, whereas his military power is only part of context in the play. Compared to Othello, his warior's strength isnt displayed all along the play, during the 1st act and the begining of 2nd one.It seems to me that his military status isnt as important as his emotional conflicts.
ReplyDeleteMacbeth's morality is based on his fear of repercution.
ReplyDeleteIs being moral because of cowardness a quality ?
In my sense, not at all. This means his suppoesed 'quality' does not pepend on him, but on the rest of society and the way it will react. He is like a sheep that follows the flow -- is THAT a quality ?
His morals and action depend on his master (the king vs Lady M).
What would happen if he didnt have a master ?
An important characteristic of Shakespearean theater, and one of the reasons it is so appreciated, is the ability of the audience to connect with the characters of the plays.
ReplyDeleteHere, as in many other Shakespearean plays, Macbeth is not described as a hero, but as a man; a man just as capable as many others of committing errors, having doubts, or act impulsively. It would therefore be inaccurate to judge Macbeth only through his "qualities" and "flaws".
True, a tragic hero must be at the base a good person and, as such, a man with flaws. Nonetheless he was considered at first a hero, and we don't necessarily mean hero in the traditional sense when we say hero, do we? let's think about it!
ReplyDeleteTo me Macbeth starts off as a respectable character, but the more we read about him the more we realize that he is not a moral man, unlike Banquo who is very respectable and who is loyal to his king and kingdom even after little speech of the the three witches. I feel as though Macbeth is too easily influenced by his wife and in a way she represents the hallucinations he has had. She represents the dagger he sees before he kills the king, because it is Lady Macbeth that pushes Macbeth into doing it and the dagger, in a way, also influences Macbeth into murdering the king. Also when he sees Banquo as a ghost it is as if Macbeth is seeing the horrors he has done and the crimes he has committed and Lady Macbeth is the reason all of these horrible things started happening. I guess what I'm trying to say is that Lady Macbeth in mirrors Macbeth's hallucinations in reality and Macbeth could just say no to her and none of these images would exist but he is too easily influenced and this cancels out any chance he could get in being a respectable character.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Macbeth is a respectable character but that he is however, very influenced by the people around him, and especially his "partner in greatness" (Lady Macbeth) and so i would say that he doesn't evolve but on the contrary he in a way regresses. This is what also makes Macbeth's evolution through the book. He is at first a great man, very loyal to his king and follows his morals and values even though he wants to be more than just thane of Glamis, he has the ambition but he cannot have both morals and ambition, he must make a choice which make him what he becomes later on. But we see as we go through the acts that he is the kind of person that gets caught up in his own mess very quickly without being able to get out of it without making the mess even bigger. Furthermore we see that the more power he gets, the less respectable he is (which i would guess is the notion of "lesser and greater" here). The fact that he becomes almost power hungry is what makes him almost repulsive by the climax of the play.
ReplyDeleteThe objects mirror Lady Macbeth, I believe, rather than the other way around, but that's a good connection. And, yes, definitely, we see Macbeth regress rather than progress during the course of the play!
ReplyDelete