Jaden Lanza's Macbeth: whose blame?

other than Macbeth? Probably Lennox no one likes Lennox

Macbeths Downfall- Who Can We Blame?

I blame William Shakespeare. William S. Shakespeare, whose middle name is not actually S, is the primary actor in the fall of Macbeth. There is a lot of evidence for this fact. There is evidence that Macbeth exists ONLY in this play; and Shakespeare is the one who wrote this play. And him being the writer of the play is irrefutable evidence that Shakespeare is the conspirator who machinated Macbeth's downfall. All arguments against my case are irrelevant, because any actions of people in the play who caused Macbeth's fall were all engineered at the hand of Shakespeare. Don't blame the witches, or the goddess Hecate, as they were all but slaves at the tip of Shakespeare's pen. And I believe the only reason that Macbeth fell was because he HAD to become evil and be disposed in order to fit Shakespeare's fascist central-leaning narrative. In real life Macbeth would have long been king and would not have been thwarted. There is lots of historical instances of tyranny and madness and tyranny being very effective methods of ruling a feudal medieval kingdom. Backstabbing and murdering your own King and your own friends, as Macbeth did, historically was very effective and did not backfire that much. Macbeth is proven to be an excellent commander, as he had defeated the King of Norway and the traitorous Macdonwald, and so I believe he would easily be able to defeat the young and inexperienced Malcolm when he lead a rebellion against him. In the play, Malcolm only had ten thousand men, and Macbeth, a seasoned commander, with most of Scotland at his back, would be able to beat back Malcolm. "...Till he [Macbeth] unseamed him from the nave to the chops And fixed his head upon the battlements." (Macbeth 1.2 24-25). This quote is Macbeth decisively killing Macdonwald, proving his own personal battle prowess. "...Old Siward with ten thousand warlike men..." (Macbeth 4.3 152). Malcolm only has ten thousand men, and it is all Old Siward's men, who is Earl of Northumberland. The men of one earldom in England is certainly going to be smaller than all Scotland. Macbeth outnumbers his enemy, is more experienced, and has home territory advantage. There is little way that Malcolm could ever win this war without divine intervention. Which is exactly what happened, with the witches who made Macbeth overconfident and insane, through instruction from Hecate. As far as I know, there is no empirical evidence supporting the existence of Hecate or of real witches, and so I hold that it would not have happened in the real world. Shakespeare is the real conspirator here, and we should all blame him. At least make a story that's plausible, Will. I declare the entirety of Macbeth as my textual evidence, which you have read and so you already know that my thesis is true.

Literary Devices 1: Dynamic Character

"If chance will have me king, why, chance may crown me, without my stir." (Macbeth 1.3 165).

"I go, and it is done... hear it not Duncan... that summons thee to heaven, or to hell." (Macbeth 2.1 71-72).

Definition: A literary character that undergoes an important inner change

At the beginning of the play, Macbeth does not want to kill Duncan and does not wish to do anything bad to Duncan in order to become king. He is still loyal to Duncan, and believes that if a prophecy prophesies him to become king, then may it happen without his own stir. But then in Act II, Macbeth had planned and is about to kill Duncan! He changes, through his wife's influence and through his own greed for power consuming him, and his attitude on the prophecy is changed. He undergoes an important inner change, and he is now willing to take out Duncan and numerous other people in order to achieve his objectives, and so this meets the definition of a dynamic character.

Literary Device 2: Static Character

"O horror, horror, horror! Tongue nor heart Cannot conceive nor name thee!... Most sacrilegious murder hath broke ope..."

(Macbeth 2.3 70-73).

"I am not treacherous.... Bleed, bleed, poor country! Great tyranny... Thy royal father Was a most Sainted King..." (Macbeth 4.3 21-126).

Definition: A literary character that undergoes little or no inner change

At the beginning of the play, as soon as Macduff finds out Duncan has been murdered, he is horrified, as he loved the king and was definitely loyal to the king, and even considered the murder sacrilegious. In the beginning he is a loyal King's man, and then at the end, he is still a loyal King's man, and is even trying to assist Malcolm in taking back the kingdom of Scotland. He believes that Duncan was a saintly king and Macbeth a bad one, as well as a murderer. While a very important character, because he kills Macbeth and was the first to support Malcolm, he is still a static character. He does not change in the play, at least in any way involving loyalty to the king or his ardor for the cause. He is just as passionate about it in the first quote as the second. In the first one he is yelling "Horror, horror, horror!" and in the second one he describes Scotland as bleeding, Macbeth's reign as tyranny, and declares the dead king a saint, all extremely passionate support for Duncan and Malcolm. And so I believe Macduff is a static character.

Literary Device 3: Conflict between the Protagonist and Antagonist

"Macbeth" (Title).

"...For brave Macbeth...unseamed him...with his former title greet Macbeth...All hail, Macbeth, that shalt be King hereafter!" (Macbeth 1.2-1.3).

"...Macduff lives in disgrace... The son of Duncan... is received of the most pious Edward... Thither is Macduff gone..." (Macbeth 3.6).

Definition: Protagonist: Chief actor, main part. Antagonist: opposing character of Protagonist.

The first and second quotes serve to show that Macbeth is the protagonist, or chief or main actor. He is not a good character and is perhaps hoped to fail by the readers, but regardless, he is the protagonist of the story and those opposing him are the antagonists. His name being the title serves as considerable proof, as well as everyone talking about him and him being prophesied to become king proves that he is the main character as him being king is what the whole story is about. He is clearly the protagonist. Who the antagonist is is debatable, however. There are multiple antagonists in this story, such as the witches, who really started it all, but Malcolm and Macduff are the ones that directly opposed him. You could consider the majority of the people of Scotland to be his antagonist as well, as most of them dislike him and do not really support him. The third quote proves that Macduff is disgraced (by Macbeth who is king) and is joining Malcolm, and they ultimately lead a foreign army to take back Scotland. Macduff is the one who kills Macbeth, and he and Malcolm raised and led the army, and so I believe that they take the roles of antagonists. If you had to pick one character, Macduff really is who it should be. He discovered the murder first, he was one of the first to suspect Macbeth, and he did a great deal to convince Malcolm of invading, and most of all, he slays of Macbeth. He is certainly the antagonist and perhaps hero of the story. Malcolm strangely has more of an indirect role, with Macduff leading the charge. I don't know why Shakespeare didn't make Malcolm the hero, wouldn't it have been more incredible a story if the young king himself slayed Macbeth? But no, Macduff did it, and so I believe that Macduff is the primary antagonist. You could consider that the witches are the antagonists since they were the ones who dictated Macbeths downfall, but I believe they did not make the prophecy, it was already in place. So if you want a divine source for Macbeth's downfall, blame the universe. The witches lead Macbeth to his kingship, so in a way they are actually a force for the protagonist.

Character Analysis

I shall analyze Macbeth

An analysis of Macbeth (the character)

The character in the scottish play with the most characterization, and the most change, is Macbeth. As the main character, naturally he is going to get the most development, and he gets quite a lot. He is a great general and thane, and gains adoration from the aristocracy when he defeats Macdonwald and the King of Norway, and is given the thaneship of Cawdor from King Duncan. He is considered a just and able leader, and the greatest thane in the kingdom, since he was the one chosen to be king after Duncan. And then after the witches prophecy, he undergoes a radical change in character that is uncanny. I think it is actually unrealistic that such a change happens in such a short time. "Is this a dagger which I see before me... A dagger of the mind, a false creation..." (Macbeth 2.1 42-47). The night he kills Duncan... he becomes so crazy he sees a hallucinate knife in front of him? Unless he was doing drugs or he had schizophrenia or something this should not ever happen. It is not ever explained whether it was the witches' doing, or if Macbeth was just insane, or if such a supernatural occurrence was just considered normal back then. I believe that it was an unrealistic and unneeded addition by Shakespeare. The only explanation of it would be if Macbeth was already unstable, and it just was not known by any of the royalty of Scotland, because admittedly, not much direct characterization of Macbeth happened before he encountered the witches, so perhaps he was already greedy and schizophrenic. And I reckon the supernatural part of Macbeths insanity detracts from the play, as it assigns the blame for tyranny and murder and the like to the supernatural, and not to Macbeth himself or the root psychological urges for power and glory. The play could serve as a lesson that you should reject your greed for power, but because the cause has been attributed to the supernatural, tyrants everywhere could be like, "eh, as long as I stay away from witches and drugs then I'll be good." So what motivates Macbeth? Greed for power, but only because of the predestination of his power. He only went for it because he knew it would work because of some witches, so how is it his fault? "All hail, Macbeth, that shalt be King hereafter!" (Macbeth 1.3 57). It was only through the prophecy that he gained motivation to do it, and so this I believe is the source of most of his motivation. His insanity and cruelty must have been inherent from before the beginning of the play, or otherwise it was unrealistically brought about by the prophecy. And when I speak of insanity I primarily mean him hallucinating the bloody knife, and even more troubling, the bloody ghost of Banquo: "Prithee see there!... If I stand here, I saw him." (Macbeth 3.4 85-90). Macbeth just spontaneously went insane after he heard the prophecy, and started hallucinating things, I suppose. That or the witches did it somehow just to disturb him. So to summarize my position, I believe Macbeth is motivated only in part by his own greed, and mostly from spontaneous insanity and from the prophecy which predestined his actions. The way in which he killed Duncan was as if he could not physically stop himself, had he such a fervor for killing Duncan when he had previously liked him. In the end I think that the play, while not a bad plot at all, has some holes in it and it is evident that it does not translate as well to book form, the same as modern movies would be revealed with blinding plot holes or a lack of plot. The hole in Macbeth's character is that it feels to me as if it wasn't any strong root weakness in his character that led him to evil, and more this unsubstantiated insanity of his and the immovability of predestination. I never liked any stories with prophecies, because if a prophecy has predestined something to happen, then that means that you already know what will happen and that it is unchangeable, so what is the point of the story? Macbeth's insanity was predestined, and so what analysis can there be? Assuming the prophecy was real, that means that the world of Macbeth is already entirely predestined, or at least all happenings in the play were, and so all of Macbeth's motivation is secondhand and not even there, and can all be attributed to the prophecy.

And you require some pictures, and so I shall deliver:

Piece of Art

The Art itself:
Big image

Explanation of Art

This piece of art is symbolic to the blame for Macbeth's downfall because WIlliam Shakespeare is the one who I blamed for Macbeth's downfall, and here we have a picture of Shakespeare. This wonderful work of art depicts Shakespeare conspiring various ways to screw over Macbeth in his next writing session. His methods were primarily in the form of making a prophecy that made it IMPOSSIBLE for Macbeth not to be crazy. A bigger description of why I blamed Shakespeare is obviously at the top of this Smore, so you already read it and know why I chose this art. There is also plenty of textual evidence, and I really don't think I should just copy and paste it down here. Also, all my explanations and analyses are already way too long so I won't waste any more of our time.