Murder and conflict are common themes in Macbeth. Is violence used to advocate for peace and harmony or is it just a plot device? Does Shakespeare distinguish between moral and immoral types of violence?
Murder and conflict were two themes that were found throughout the entire book of Macbeth. Shakespeare did this because it kept the audience on their toes and made for an exciting and thrilling play to watch. For example in act 1 scene 3, the witches told Macbeth and Banquo each a prophecy. Macbeth was told that he would be king of Scotland, and Banquo was told that his descendants would take on the crown. Due to this prophecy, it not only sparked the idea of murder so that Macbeth would become king, but it also created a conflict between Banquo's descendants and Macbeth. Although, through this peace and harmony was able to be restored. Macbeth created destruction and death during his reign. He killed many innocent people in order for his own prophecy to come true, but also so that Banquo's prophecy would not come true. Many people knew that Macbeth had to be stopped somehow, and it was through violence itself that he was stopped. In act 5 scene 8, Macduff restored peace and harmony through the murder of Macbeth. I actually find it immensely ironic that the one action, murder/ violence, that started the conflict in the play was the only action that was able to resolve the conflict in the end. The reason that this worked out was because Shakespeare specifically distinguished between moral and immoral types of violence. For example, the murder of King Duncan was immoral due to the fact that it was for Macbeth's own selfish and greedy reasons. The rest of Macbeth's murders were also immoral because he wished ill will on other's lives so that he would be able to succeed. In contrast, Macduff murdered Macbeth for the good and safety of Scotland. Therefore, this was in fact a moral type of violence. Shakespeare was not only a famous playwright at his time, but he is still famous for his works today. This is because of the relevance of the topics he talked about in his writings. No matter what time frame one is in, violence and conflict will always be relevant. Which is why Shakespeare's works are known as classics and are still enjoyable to read and watch today.
The play Macbeth has a main theme of murder and death. The main character, Macbeth, brings forth the idea of killing only for ones own sake. Sometimes the deaths of minor characters such as Macduff's family and young Seward are used as only ways to add something to the plot or advance the story line. Shakespeare used these deaths to bring forth more ambition into the other characters and to have some filler areas in the plot which most authors tend to do in their writing. The argument of how King Duncan's death should be viewed is brought into play. The death strongly pushed the story line and allowed for the other characters to be impacted and to change their motivations. Duncan's death impacted the story greatly and allowed for the plot to move forward to where Shakespeare wanted to take the story to which was a movement towards tragicness and conflict. Shakespeare did not just murder characters in the play to move plot ahead but he also used killing as a way to bring peace to the people in the story. Obviously Macbeth's death at the end of the play is a huge example of how Shakespeare killed him off and this his death brought harmony and peace to the characters. Macbeth was seen as a power hungry tyrant who's only goal was to remain on the throne. The people of Scotland felt trapped under his rule and wanted to be free, thus when Macduff killed him in battle the Scotland people felt relieved and free. Another death in the play that brought forth peace and harmony is the death of the Thane of Cawdor in the beginning of the play. The messenger when reporting of the death of the Thane of Cawdor said that the only good thing in his life that he had done was die. Thus we know that the death was seen as a joyful one that brought peace to the Scotland nobles in the play. Shakespeare used both ways of murder in his play, quite fantastically and created a tragic masterpiece that is still read and learned about very often in today's era.
Nichole, I like the numerous amount of examples in the book that you used. It shows that you must know what you are talking about. To improve it further, you could paragraph the ideas, to help the reader follow along easier. Good Job!
Violence is used to both advocate for peace and harmony, as well as being a plot device. As we know, Macbeth used to be a fierce warrior, who was honored by the king. Violence, in war, is used in order to achieve peace and harmony. There is no arguing this. Violence, in this sense, is protection. If this type of violence is acceptable, should the killing of Macbeth also be considered as such? This question raises a much deeper moral issue involving the death penalty. If killing is wrong, why is it okay to kill the killer? What should we as Christians think of this? Here is a link to help with that one: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/did-the-church-change-its-teaching-on-the-death-penalty. Next, Shakespeare did in fact distinguish between moral and immoral violence in the same concept of war. It was okay for Macbeth to kill in war, but when he started killing out of selfishness, it was clear how immoral the violence became. The before and after of Macbeth's character is the epitome of moral vs immoral and peace vs plot device.
I like how you rbrought in the death penalty, but I would've maybe added a lot more. This was way too short to make a point about such a big aspect of the story
Instead of making your readers physically go to the website and read it from there, and have to spend time finding your reference, it would have been more sufficient for you to go in detail of how your source explained your proposition. However, I like your statement about violence in battle is usd to achieve peace and harmony, in which Macbeth was that definition before the evil forces approached him. Extend your ideas further and in detail, then readers won't be left feeling questionable.
I agree with Emily, you should of explained your reference in your blog rather than having the reader have to physically go through and find what you are trying to say themself, that's kind of a bit of a hassle for us and it was the easy route for you.
I like the fact that you added a Christian viewpoint to it but I think you needed to explain your source more thouroughly and explain why you added it but other than that good job.
Shakespeare, in a sense, does use violence as a way to show how one can have actions that are moral or immoral. He also shows a sense of ignorance and how one can be ignorant within their actions. Macbeth was a good man who always did what he could for the good. But, when he was given a prophecy he started to doubt his own was of living and thought maybe a little bad wouldn't hurt. He went to his wife, Lady Macbeth, who thought that if they killed the king they could have so much power and such just for themselves. She was thinking of a good outcome for her and her husband when it was really a horrible outcome for everyone else. She was being ignorant, she went into this action not knowing every little detail but did it anyways for her own good. Macbeth, on the other hand, was immoral with his actions. The entire time he thought it was a horrible idea, and even after he regretted every action. When you do something wrong and you know it's wrong, your immoral, but moral is when you do something good and you know it's good. If I had to be honest, I think the king was the only one who had moral violence. War is not justified by morals, anyone involved in the war, including the king, cannot be moral or immoral. You are defending your country. Usually just the ones who start the war are immoral, but we cannot say that Duncan started the war or not, if he plans to keep defending for the country, he has some good morals. Another person that people think is moral is Malcom. He, in fact, cannot be moral. Outside of war, killing another is always immoral. You cannot simply say that a person has been killing everyone so I should kill him before anyone else dies. Two wrongs don't make a right. So with that, is there really anyone who used violence morally?
I like how you acknowledge that Macbeth was tricked into the violence that hung over him by Lady. You should extend your last idea a little more next time! You ask a great question that, I understand, isn't meant to be answered but you should put in the power of your voice to persuade the reader even further. Great job
Macbeth is a play that has had plot elements copied and pasted since it's inception. It's iconic status has led to several new adaptations, interpretations, and even some rip offs. Known for its violence and consistent conflicts, Macbeth tells the story of a great man who became and evil monster. The use of violence in art, literature, music, video games, and films has always been a topic of controversy, and Macbeth is no exception. Many will say that violence is used as a simple plot device used to progress the story forward. However, most will argue the significance of violence in these artistic mediums. Murder is on elf the greatest crimes a person can commit against humanity. It robs people of life and eaves their acquaintances with a hole in their lives that can never be filled again. This, in fact, is how Macbeth is shown to be so evil. He killed for pleasure. Just like real serial killers like John Wayne Gacy or Jeffrey Dahmer, Macbeth is a symbol of evil who utilized murder for personal gain and pleasure, only for it to come back and cause his untimely downfall. Murder and death are essential themes when it comes to displaying evil, solely because of the significance of it. It's so effective in every form of entertainment and art because of how it reminds people of the significance and results of murder. Macbeth is actually on the same level as video games like Grand Theft Auto, music like that of Cannibal Corpse and Cattle Decapitation, and films such as Pulp Fiction or Saw. All of these use violence in order to perpetuate a plot and portray the significance of death and murder. Without these portrayals being shown as evil, people would be more likely to not understand the significance of homicide. Some may argue that it has desensitized us to violence, and some even argue that it encourages violence and murder. These are arguments with little ground to stand on, and often just exist as scapegoats. Macbeth shares many of the same characteristics as these other mediums, but isn't typically questioned anymore due to its age. We become desensitized eventually after time, but these art forms continue to remind us that murder is immoral and that death is not something to be messed with. We are always reminded that these things are wrong, and more controversial subjects will always remind us what is wrong.
Nick, your well worded vocabulary and outside references creates a great argument for you. It flows nicely and makes complete sense. Well written blog!
Macbeth is one of Shakespeare's more shorter plays, but full of intensity. Through our extensive assignments, in class discussions, the seminar, and performing scenes, it has increased my understanding of the play greatly. In that time, I was able to distinguish the violence in different perspectives. However, I have not once thought the violence portrayed in Macbeth was used to advocate peace and harmony. I strongly view Macbeth's inflicted violence as a sole plot device and nothing more than supposed self gain. As talked about many times, the witches initially planted the seed of evil and violence into Macbeth's life. The seed then sprouted into an extensive want for his (Macbeth) power which led him to betray, deceive, murder, and tyranny. With the respected plot of Macbeth, there was not a sign of a want for peace; his main concern was diminishing everything in his path that blocked him from the throne and fulfilling the prophecies, hence the death of King Duncan, Banquo, and Macduff's wife and son. The evident types of violence in the play was acted by Macbeth, in which was an immoral type of violence; Shakespeare makes sure of it. The play was set in the focus on Macbeth and his experience through the time. Other than Macbeth's ill-willed violence, Macduff and Malcom engaged in violence for the destruction of Macbeth and his own evil violence. Macduff and Malcolm use moral violence to end Macbeth and his evil reign for Scotland to prosper in hands of a rightful king. The scenes portrayed a good sense of immoral violence and the evil that causes the destruction of many lives, character, and power.
Emily, I enjoyed your opening sentence. It really helped the picture of your blog become a little more vivid. Iit's very true that Macbeth is short, but also contains some pretty nice depth.
Very strong opening! Instead of saying "his (Macbeth)" you should just say Macbeth right of the bat. You had a different view than I did on the topic but with you arguing skills I can see why you think what you do! Great job
The play of Macbeth portrays power and violence through the works of Macbeth's actions and role. Macbeth's chose to use violence as a weapon when he attempted gaining great power. He faced many choices, but constantly struggled with his conscience and resulted often in tragic consequences. His actions created a negative effect on the characters around him because he became only aware of his own wants without putting in respect toward others. Macbeth's actions had a significant impact on his life with the motivating factor in choices. I definitely believe that Macbeth used his skills and knowledge to produce violence only for a sole purpose of benefiting himself. He obviously really had no concern for the lives of others their families. He only cared about his own life. Macbeth fell away from his morally lived life into a life of greed and bad choices. His life quickly transitioned into a tragic downfall. His violence did him no help as it lead to his own death. In a sense I would categorize Macbeth's murders as being strongly immoral. He killed only for his own benefits in reaching his own success which is not moral what so ever. It's just plain wrong to do such harsh acts on individuals just to reach a specific want. I also think that after Macbeth fell into the temptations of this habit that he believed that he was almost sorta being moral. Moral in a way that he believed he was destined to hold the power of the people and perform good for them. Macbeth is a play that revolves around decisions and actions of power and knowledge.
In the play Macbeth, the theme throughout the entire read is murder and conflict. All of the tragic events that occur throughout the play are all because of the immoral device that Shakespeare uses in the beginning of the play. The three weird sisters, or witches, appeared to Macbeth and gave him a prophecy that he would soon become king. Macbeth shared this with his wife, another immoral device, and she convinces him that in order to be king soon he would have to kill King Duncan. Although it depends on the situation, violence is, quite often, used as an advocate for peace. Violence is sometimes needed to spark the search for peace and harmony. In America, the revolutionary war and the civil war are prime examples of this. The revolutionary war needed to happen in order for the American people to gain their freedom from England, as well as their own peace and harmony. In the civil war, the American people had to fight each other in order to gain peace with each other. Violence is most certainly not the cure-all for peace issues, but it turns out to be a very strong advocate to gaining that peace and harmony that is so highly coveted by all people. In Macbeth, Macbeth is at war with every one and has no one in his corner. He ends up killing many people and eventually guilt catches up to him. In Macbeth, Macbeth is at war with every one and has no one in his corner. He ends up killing many people and eventually guilt catches up to him. In the end Macbeth ends up dying with all of his violence and guilt, and peace is brought to all who still lived through the time under the reign of Macbeth.
Nichole, I like your straightforwardness to the blog. With the added example of the American Revolution, it was really interesting to read. Keep up the good work!
I can agree with Timmy. It's really good, I like how you related it to real life events to show us how to look at it. Gives us an idea what to think about.
Macbeth had slot of power, and all he cared about was keeping it, he didn't care about anyone else but himself. He was not interested in peace and harmony, and he wasn't interested in the people either. Once Macbeth becomes king, the others in the play all want to get him out of power, not because they want the all the power to themselves, but I believe it was because all they want is peace. Macbeth truly doesn't have the good peace in his mind or in his heart, and because he doesn't have this peace, he cannot have peace throughout his whole kingdom. He is always paranoid about everything, and is violent throughout the whole entire play. The definition on moral is concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. The definition of immoral is not conforming to accepted standards of morality. I believe that Shakespeare does distinguish the difference between moral and immoral violence. It is highlighted by the theme brought by the witches: "Fair is foul, and foul is fair." The witches prophecies is what sparks Macbeth and his violent behavior. Lady Macbeth is the one with all the brains in all of her husbands plotting of all the anger, violence, and evil. Lady Macbeth shows that women can be just a cruel as any male character in this play. Lady Macbeth never killed anyone, she always used manipulation and deception rather than the violence to achieve her duties. Violence is viewed in many different aspects throughout this play and I believe that it is all all moral violence
Thanks for giving us some definitions. It really helped to understand your points because we all have different definitions in our minds of these. It is not all moral violence though, girl!
I believe that violence is not used to advocate peace and harmony, I think nine times out of ten there's always a devious plot when someone is violence. My first example is in Macbeth, Macbeth didn't use violence to create peace, because if anything he destroyed it. Macbeth wasn't looking for anything but power for himself. Another example is in the real world. If there's a shooting, especially at a school, that shooter isn't going into the school looking for peace and harmony, because that school had more peace before the shooter entered the building. A third example is of a specific person. In June of 2016 a singer named Christina Grimmie was shot and killed at a meet and greet, for no reason. That shooter wasn't promoting peace either, he was destroying it. The world is a cruel place filled with awful people. Shakespeare does not distinguish between moral and immoral violence, he just adds a lot of violence into the play. Although all of the violence in the play was immoral and wrong. Shakespeare doesn't teach the difference between moral and immoral, but I don't really think there is such thing as moral violence. If a person was moral and knew between right and wrong, they would know that all violence is definitely wrong. Macbeth is a tragedy play filled with cruel and unjustly violence.
You definitely have the start of some good ideas in here. Your wording could be written in a much stringer format next time to aid you in convincing the reader
From visions of headless people and bloody hands, to ending entire families, the play Macbeth is centered around violence. In a twisted sense, it's used to advocate for peace and harmony. The people who were murdered, were done so for the peace and harmony of Macbeth, as he tries to cast his anxieties aside. Macbeth wanted to kill anyone who he thought would want him dead. The goal he wanted in the end was to pass his royalty down to his children. So, once he killed his opposition, in a sense he would be at peace and harmony, not having to fight anymore. Also I don't see how violence can't be both used to advocate something while also be in unison with progressing the storyline. On one hand, MacBeth is killing for his own preservation, and, on the other, he is progressing the storyline by having Macduff seek vengeance for his murdered family. Shakespeare does distinguish between moral and immoral types of violence. When Macbeth killed the king, his guilt in doing so was emphasized: I’ll go no more: I am afraid to think what I have done; Look on ’t again I dare not.
Macbeth felt guilt for his crime. If one compares this death to the death of Macbeth, which was greeted as a victory, they can see how distinguished the types of violence are.
There were many times in this play that I sat baffled at the amount of blatant violence and conflict occurring among this group of people. I felt that there was definitely a distinct line drawn between the "good guys" and the "bad guys" pretty quickly. The bad guys, such as Macbeth, fell to a small temptation and quickly started on a killing spree. Then there was the good guys, such as Macduff, who chopped off someone's head and walked around completely proud with the poor thing. What is the difference between the two situations, or is there one? I believe Macbeth had to be taken down one way or another, so retaliating with the same kind of violence he fought with seemed to be what worked the best for them. Macduff and the rest of the good guys had nothing but good intentions for their country and their people living scared inside of what the once called home. The violence Macduff used was necessary for the situation and someone had to do it. While reading Macbeth, i felt he distinguished between the moral and immoral types of violence. One instance I thought this was particularly obvious was when Macduff heard of the news of his family's death. After Macduff heard the news, he vowed he would have revenge on Macbeth for what horrific acts he has committed. Macduff then proceeds to go into battle and eventually cut of Macbeth's head. Macduff was avenging his family and only wanted to target who truly committed the terrible act against him. Malcom tells Macduff in Act 4 Scene 3 "Dispute it like a man." Macduff then answers with, "Brung thou this fiend of Scotland and myself. Within my sword's length set him. If he scape, Heaney forgive him to." Macduff only calls out Macbeth. He was not going in a killing rampage of innocent people that could possibly be in his pathway like Macbeth mercilessly did. Everything Macduff did was for the greater good of not only his people, but for everyone in the surrounding area that could be at the brunt of Macbeth's crazy mood swings. On the other hand, Macbeth never kills for any time of deserved vengeance. He kills for selfish desire for power. Shakespeare may not come out and blatantly say what type of violence is right and wrong, but he does give us enough evidence from each side of the multiple conflicts to be able to draw our own conclusions.
Murder and conflict were two themes that were found throughout the entire book of Macbeth. Shakespeare did this because it kept the audience on their toes and made for an exciting and thrilling play to watch. For example in act 1 scene 3, the witches told Macbeth and Banquo each a prophecy. Macbeth was told that he would be king of Scotland, and Banquo was told that his descendants would take on the crown. Due to this prophecy, it not only sparked the idea of murder so that Macbeth would become king, but it also created a conflict between Banquo's descendants and Macbeth. Although, through this peace and harmony was able to be restored. Macbeth created destruction and death during his reign. He killed many innocent people in order for his own prophecy to come true, but also so that Banquo's prophecy would not come true. Many people knew that Macbeth had to be stopped somehow, and it was through violence itself that he was stopped. In act 5 scene 8, Macduff restored peace and harmony through the murder of Macbeth. I actually find it immensely ironic that the one action, murder/ violence, that started the conflict in the play was the only action that was able to resolve the conflict in the end. The reason that this worked out was because Shakespeare specifically distinguished between moral and immoral types of violence. For example, the murder of King Duncan was immoral due to the fact that it was for Macbeth's own selfish and greedy reasons. The rest of Macbeth's murders were also immoral because he wished ill will on other's lives so that he would be able to succeed. In contrast, Macduff murdered Macbeth for the good and safety of Scotland. Therefore, this was in fact a moral type of violence.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare was not only a famous playwright at his time, but he is still famous for his works today. This is because of the relevance of the topics he talked about in his writings. No matter what time frame one is in, violence and conflict will always be relevant. Which is why Shakespeare's works are known as classics and are still enjoyable to read and watch today.
I like your direct reference to the text, it really helped strengthen your blog. Well done
DeleteThe play Macbeth has a main theme of murder and death. The main character, Macbeth, brings forth the idea of killing only for ones own sake. Sometimes the deaths of minor characters such as Macduff's family and young Seward are used as only ways to add something to the plot or advance the story line. Shakespeare used these deaths to bring forth more ambition into the other characters and to have some filler areas in the plot which most authors tend to do in their writing. The argument of how King Duncan's death should be viewed is brought into play. The death strongly pushed the story line and allowed for the other characters to be impacted and to change their motivations. Duncan's death impacted the story greatly and allowed for the plot to move forward to where Shakespeare wanted to take the story to which was a movement towards tragicness and conflict. Shakespeare did not just murder characters in the play to move plot ahead but he also used killing as a way to bring peace to the people in the story. Obviously Macbeth's death at the end of the play is a huge example of how Shakespeare killed him off and this his death brought harmony and peace to the characters. Macbeth was seen as a power hungry tyrant who's only goal was to remain on the throne. The people of Scotland felt trapped under his rule and wanted to be free, thus when Macduff killed him in battle the Scotland people felt relieved and free. Another death in the play that brought forth peace and harmony is the death of the Thane of Cawdor in the beginning of the play. The messenger when reporting of the death of the Thane of Cawdor said that the only good thing in his life that he had done was die. Thus we know that the death was seen as a joyful one that brought peace to the Scotland nobles in the play. Shakespeare used both ways of murder in his play, quite fantastically and created a tragic masterpiece that is still read and learned about very often in today's era.
ReplyDeleteNichole, I like the numerous amount of examples in the book that you used. It shows that you must know what you are talking about. To improve it further, you could paragraph the ideas, to help the reader follow along easier. Good Job!
DeleteGood use of example! I disagree however with some of your points! Wasn't death sad more often than not?
DeleteViolence is used to both advocate for peace and harmony, as well as being a plot device. As we know, Macbeth used to be a fierce warrior, who was honored by the king. Violence, in war, is used in order to achieve peace and harmony. There is no arguing this. Violence, in this sense, is protection. If this type of violence is acceptable, should the killing of Macbeth also be considered as such? This question raises a much deeper moral issue involving the death penalty. If killing is wrong, why is it okay to kill the killer? What should we as Christians think of this? Here is a link to help with that one: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/did-the-church-change-its-teaching-on-the-death-penalty. Next, Shakespeare did in fact distinguish between moral and immoral violence in the same concept of war. It was okay for Macbeth to kill in war, but when he started killing out of selfishness, it was clear how immoral the violence became. The before and after of Macbeth's character is the epitome of moral vs immoral and peace vs plot device.
ReplyDeleteI like how you rbrought in the death penalty, but I would've maybe added a lot more. This was way too short to make a point about such a big aspect of the story
DeleteInstead of making your readers physically go to the website and read it from there, and have to spend time finding your reference, it would have been more sufficient for you to go in detail of how your source explained your proposition. However, I like your statement about violence in battle is usd to achieve peace and harmony, in which Macbeth was that definition before the evil forces approached him. Extend your ideas further and in detail, then readers won't be left feeling questionable.
DeleteI agree with Emily, you should of explained your reference in your blog rather than having the reader have to physically go through and find what you are trying to say themself, that's kind of a bit of a hassle for us and it was the easy route for you.
DeleteI like the fact that you added a Christian viewpoint to it but I think you needed to explain your source more thouroughly and explain why you added it but other than that good job.
DeleteShakespeare, in a sense, does use violence as a way to show how one can have actions that are moral or immoral. He also shows a sense of ignorance and how one can be ignorant within their actions. Macbeth was a good man who always did what he could for the good. But, when he was given a prophecy he started to doubt his own was of living and thought maybe a little bad wouldn't hurt. He went to his wife, Lady Macbeth, who thought that if they killed the king they could have so much power and such just for themselves. She was thinking of a good outcome for her and her husband when it was really a horrible outcome for everyone else. She was being ignorant, she went into this action not knowing every little detail but did it anyways for her own good. Macbeth, on the other hand, was immoral with his actions. The entire time he thought it was a horrible idea, and even after he regretted every action. When you do something wrong and you know it's wrong, your immoral, but moral is when you do something good and you know it's good. If I had to be honest, I think the king was the only one who had moral violence. War is not justified by morals, anyone involved in the war, including the king, cannot be moral or immoral. You are defending your country. Usually just the ones who start the war are immoral, but we cannot say that Duncan started the war or not, if he plans to keep defending for the country, he has some good morals. Another person that people think is moral is Malcom. He, in fact, cannot be moral. Outside of war, killing another is always immoral. You cannot simply say that a person has been killing everyone so I should kill him before anyone else dies. Two wrongs don't make a right. So with that, is there really anyone who used violence morally?
ReplyDeleteI like how you acknowledge that Macbeth was tricked into the violence that hung over him by Lady. You should extend your last idea a little more next time! You ask a great question that, I understand, isn't meant to be answered but you should put in the power of your voice to persuade the reader even further. Great job
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMacbeth is a play that has had plot elements copied and pasted since it's inception. It's iconic status has led to several new adaptations, interpretations, and even some rip offs. Known for its violence and consistent conflicts, Macbeth tells the story of a great man who became and evil monster. The use of violence in art, literature, music, video games, and films has always been a topic of controversy, and Macbeth is no exception. Many will say that violence is used as a simple plot device used to progress the story forward. However, most will argue the significance of violence in these artistic mediums. Murder is on elf the greatest crimes a person can commit against humanity. It robs people of life and eaves their acquaintances with a hole in their lives that can never be filled again. This, in fact, is how Macbeth is shown to be so evil. He killed for pleasure. Just like real serial killers like John Wayne Gacy or Jeffrey Dahmer, Macbeth is a symbol of evil who utilized murder for personal gain and pleasure, only for it to come back and cause his untimely downfall. Murder and death are essential themes when it comes to displaying evil, solely because of the significance of it. It's so effective in every form of entertainment and art because of how it reminds people of the significance and results of murder. Macbeth is actually on the same level as video games like Grand Theft Auto, music like that of Cannibal Corpse and Cattle Decapitation, and films such as Pulp Fiction or Saw. All of these use violence in order to perpetuate a plot and portray the significance of death and murder. Without these portrayals being shown as evil, people would be more likely to not understand the significance of homicide. Some may argue that it has desensitized us to violence, and some even argue that it encourages violence and murder. These are arguments with little ground to stand on, and often just exist as scapegoats. Macbeth shares many of the same characteristics as these other mediums, but isn't typically questioned anymore due to its age. We become desensitized eventually after time, but these art forms continue to remind us that murder is immoral and that death is not something to be messed with. We are always reminded that these things are wrong, and more controversial subjects will always remind us what is wrong.
ReplyDeleteNick, your well worded vocabulary and outside references creates a great argument for you. It flows nicely and makes complete sense. Well written blog!
DeleteMacbeth is one of Shakespeare's more shorter plays, but full of intensity. Through our extensive assignments, in class discussions, the seminar, and performing scenes, it has increased my understanding of the play greatly. In that time, I was able to distinguish the violence in different perspectives. However, I have not once thought the violence portrayed in Macbeth was used to advocate peace and harmony. I strongly view Macbeth's inflicted violence as a sole plot device and nothing more than supposed self gain. As talked about many times, the witches initially planted the seed of evil and violence into Macbeth's life. The seed then sprouted into an extensive want for his (Macbeth) power which led him to betray, deceive, murder, and tyranny. With the respected plot of Macbeth, there was not a sign of a want for peace; his main concern was diminishing everything in his path that blocked him from the throne and fulfilling the prophecies, hence the death of King Duncan, Banquo, and Macduff's wife and son. The evident types of violence in the play was acted by Macbeth, in which was an immoral type of violence; Shakespeare makes sure of it. The play was set in the focus on Macbeth and his experience through the time. Other than Macbeth's ill-willed violence, Macduff and Malcom engaged in violence for the destruction of Macbeth and his own evil violence. Macduff and Malcolm use moral violence to end Macbeth and his evil reign for Scotland to prosper in hands of a rightful king. The scenes portrayed a good sense of immoral violence and the evil that causes the destruction of many lives, character, and power.
ReplyDeleteEmily, I enjoyed your opening sentence. It really helped the picture of your blog become a little more vivid. Iit's very true that Macbeth is short, but also contains some pretty nice depth.
DeleteVery strong opening! Instead of saying "his (Macbeth)" you should just say Macbeth right of the bat. You had a different view than I did on the topic but with you arguing skills I can see why you think what you do! Great job
DeleteYour perspective on this topic was very interesting! Your strong opinions are well backed up with great eveidence!! Good job
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCass, I liked how you included a definition and the quote! It really added to your blog. Nice work!
DeleteThe play of Macbeth portrays power and violence through the works of Macbeth's actions and role. Macbeth's chose to use violence as a weapon when he attempted gaining great power. He faced many choices, but constantly struggled with his conscience and resulted often in tragic consequences. His actions created a negative effect on the characters around him because he became only aware of his own wants without putting in respect toward others. Macbeth's actions had a significant impact on his life with the motivating factor in choices.
ReplyDeleteI definitely believe that Macbeth used his skills and knowledge to produce violence only for a sole purpose of benefiting himself. He obviously really had no concern for the lives of others their families. He only cared about his own life. Macbeth fell away from his morally lived life into a life of greed and bad choices. His life quickly transitioned into a tragic downfall. His violence did him no help as it lead to his own death.
In a sense I would categorize Macbeth's murders as being strongly immoral. He killed only for his own benefits in reaching his own success which is not moral what so ever. It's just plain wrong to do such harsh acts on individuals just to reach a specific want. I also think that after Macbeth fell into the temptations of this habit that he believed that he was almost sorta being moral. Moral in a way that he believed he was destined to hold the power of the people and perform good for them. Macbeth is a play that revolves around decisions and actions of power and knowledge.
Lauryn, I like your second paragraph! I agree with the one the most, he definitely only cared about his own life! Good work!
DeleteI agree with everything you said, and it's well written. I could understand all your thoughts clearly. Nice job.
DeleteI really enjoy how you talk about the results of Macbeth's immoral decisions. It was a very well written blog! Keep up the good work:)
DeleteIn the play Macbeth, the theme throughout the entire read is murder and conflict. All of the tragic events that occur throughout the play are all because of the immoral device that Shakespeare uses in the beginning of the play. The three weird sisters, or witches, appeared to Macbeth and gave him a prophecy that he would soon become king. Macbeth shared this with his wife, another immoral device, and she convinces him that in order to be king soon he would have to kill King Duncan. Although it depends on the situation, violence is, quite often, used as an advocate for peace. Violence is sometimes needed to spark the search for peace and harmony. In America, the revolutionary war and the civil war are prime examples of this. The revolutionary war needed to happen in order for the American people to gain their freedom from England, as well as their own peace and harmony. In the civil war, the American people had to fight each other in order to gain peace with each other. Violence is most certainly not the cure-all for peace issues, but it turns out to be a very strong advocate to gaining that peace and harmony that is so highly coveted by all people. In Macbeth, Macbeth is at war with every one and has no one in his corner. He ends up killing many people and eventually guilt catches up to him. In Macbeth, Macbeth is at war with every one and has no one in his corner. He ends up killing many people and eventually guilt catches up to him. In the end Macbeth ends up dying with all of his violence and guilt, and peace is brought to all who still lived through the time under the reign of Macbeth.
ReplyDeleteNichole, I like your straightforwardness to the blog. With the added example of the American Revolution, it was really interesting to read. Keep up the good work!
DeleteI can agree with Timmy. It's really good, I like how you related it to real life events to show us how to look at it. Gives us an idea what to think about.
DeleteMacbeth had slot of power, and all he cared about was keeping it, he didn't care about anyone else but himself. He was not interested in peace and harmony, and he wasn't interested in the people either. Once Macbeth becomes king, the others in the play all want to get him out of power, not because they want the all the power to themselves, but I believe it was because all they want is peace. Macbeth truly doesn't have the good peace in his mind or in his heart, and because he doesn't have this peace, he cannot have peace throughout his whole kingdom. He is always paranoid about everything, and is violent throughout the whole entire play.
ReplyDeleteThe definition on moral is concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. The definition of immoral is not conforming to accepted standards of morality. I believe that Shakespeare does distinguish the difference between moral and immoral violence. It is highlighted by the theme brought by the witches: "Fair is foul, and foul is fair." The witches prophecies is what sparks Macbeth and his violent behavior. Lady Macbeth is the one with all the brains in all of her husbands plotting of all the anger, violence, and evil. Lady Macbeth shows that women can be just a cruel as any male character in this play. Lady Macbeth never killed anyone, she always used manipulation and deception rather than the violence to achieve her duties. Violence is viewed in many different aspects throughout this play and I believe that it is all all moral violence
Thanks for giving us some definitions. It really helped to understand your points because we all have different definitions in our minds of these. It is not all moral violence though, girl!
DeleteI believe that violence is not used to advocate peace and harmony, I think nine times out of ten there's always a devious plot when someone is violence. My first example is in Macbeth, Macbeth didn't use violence to create peace, because if anything he destroyed it. Macbeth wasn't looking for anything but power for himself. Another example is in the real world. If there's a shooting, especially at a school, that shooter isn't going into the school looking for peace and harmony, because that school had more peace before the shooter entered the building. A third example is of a specific person. In June of 2016 a singer named Christina Grimmie was shot and killed at a meet and greet, for no reason. That shooter wasn't promoting peace either, he was destroying it. The world is a cruel place filled with awful people.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare does not distinguish between moral and immoral violence, he just adds a lot of violence into the play. Although all of the violence in the play was immoral and wrong. Shakespeare doesn't teach the difference between moral and immoral, but I don't really think there is such thing as moral violence. If a person was moral and knew between right and wrong, they would know that all violence is definitely wrong. Macbeth is a tragedy play filled with cruel and unjustly violence.
You definitely have the start of some good ideas in here. Your wording could be written in a much stringer format next time to aid you in convincing the reader
DeleteFrom visions of headless people and bloody hands, to ending entire families, the play Macbeth is centered around violence. In a twisted sense, it's used to advocate for peace and harmony. The people who were murdered, were done so for the peace and harmony of Macbeth, as he tries to cast his anxieties aside. Macbeth wanted to kill anyone who he thought would want him dead. The goal he wanted in the end was to pass his royalty down to his children. So, once he killed his opposition, in a sense he would be at peace and harmony, not having to fight anymore. Also I don't see how violence can't be both used to advocate something while also be in unison with progressing the storyline. On one hand, MacBeth is killing for his own preservation, and, on the other, he is progressing the storyline by having Macduff seek vengeance for his murdered family.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare does distinguish between moral and immoral types of violence. When Macbeth killed the king, his guilt in doing so was emphasized:
I’ll go no more:
I am afraid to think what I have done;
Look on ’t again I dare not.
Macbeth felt guilt for his crime. If one compares this death to the death of Macbeth, which was greeted as a victory, they can see how distinguished the types of violence are.
I loved this blog! I especially liked your introduction! It grabbed me in and I wanted to keep reading. Well done:)
DeleteThere were many times in this play that I sat baffled at the amount of blatant violence and conflict occurring among this group of people. I felt that there was definitely a distinct line drawn between the "good guys" and the "bad guys" pretty quickly. The bad guys, such as Macbeth, fell to a small temptation and quickly started on a killing spree. Then there was the good guys, such as Macduff, who chopped off someone's head and walked around completely proud with the poor thing. What is the difference between the two situations, or is there one? I believe Macbeth had to be taken down one way or another, so retaliating with the same kind of violence he fought with seemed to be what worked the best for them. Macduff and the rest of the good guys had nothing but good intentions for their country and their people living scared inside of what the once called home. The violence Macduff used was necessary for the situation and someone had to do it. While reading Macbeth, i felt he distinguished between the moral and immoral types of violence. One instance I thought this was particularly obvious was when Macduff heard of the news of his family's death. After Macduff heard the news, he vowed he would have revenge on Macbeth for what horrific acts he has committed. Macduff then proceeds to go into battle and eventually cut of Macbeth's head. Macduff was avenging his family and only wanted to target who truly committed the terrible act against him. Malcom tells Macduff in Act 4 Scene 3 "Dispute it like a man." Macduff then answers with, "Brung thou this fiend of Scotland and myself. Within my sword's length set him. If he scape, Heaney forgive him to." Macduff only calls out Macbeth. He was not going in a killing rampage of innocent people that could possibly be in his pathway like Macbeth mercilessly did. Everything Macduff did was for the greater good of not only his people, but for everyone in the surrounding area that could be at the brunt of Macbeth's crazy mood swings. On the other hand, Macbeth never kills for any time of deserved vengeance. He kills for selfish desire for power. Shakespeare may not come out and blatantly say what type of violence is right and wrong, but he does give us enough evidence from each side of the multiple conflicts to be able to draw our own conclusions.
ReplyDelete