Nature vs. Nurture in Macbeth??

[QuantumIguana]

Perhaps Macbeth would have done better if he said "Damned right that's a dagger I see before me!"

[crich70]

Originally Posted by HarryT

And yet curiously enough, Mr and Mrs Macbeth are one of the very few truly happy marriages that we find in Shakespeare - a curious anomaly!

But of course, Macbeth wouldn't be the leading character in a tragedy unless he had a flaw in the character (the flaw being ambition in his case, although perhaps Lady Macbeth is the true leader in the plot?).

Yes, they pointed that out in the show I saw as well. Usually people are falling in love, or out of it or the relationship is dysfunctional in some other way. Of course it can be argued that Lady Macbeth wears the pants in the relationship as she manages to push him into doing it when he wavers. It certainly proves that ambition isn't gender based.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by HarryT

In the early 17th century, when the play was written, belief in witchcraft was almost universal. You really can't judge the play by the standards of today's society.

The question, though, as to whether the witches made Macbeth a murderer, or whether they simply foretold something that he was going to do anyway is one that's been asked many times. There is no clearcut answer - one can find arguments to support both sides.

But even if you accept that, for the purposes of the story, witchcraft was real, their relevance to what unfolds always seemed (to me) to be minimal. That probably reveals my own cynicism; that people don't need excuses to behave like complete ....

Given the context of the plays, I'm inclined to think that the witches weren't actually intended to offer any deeper meaning to the story, I think they were added to please the audience - just as modern authors now add vampires, werewolves and zombies.

I get the impression that a modern editor would have told Shakespeare to "kill his darlings" (as that awful modern advice goes), and remove the hags. ... And yet what a loss that would have been. All these questions that we pose now, that need not have been outstanding had he just told the central plot without them.

[VydorScope]

Originally Posted by gmw

I get the impression that a modern editor would have told Shakespeare to "kill his darlings" (as that awful modern advice goes), and remove the hags. ... And yet what a loss that would have been. All these questions that we pose now, that need not have been outstanding had he just told the central plot without them.

But that is the point, is it not? You can reduce most stories to something like "Dude kills other dude and goes to jail. The end."

Its all the other stuff that makes the story have flesh and life! Its the details that are in the world AROUND the story that make it seem immersive.

At least that is what I think.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by VydorScope

But that is the point, is it not? You can reduce most stories to something like "Dude kills other dude and goes to jail. The end."

Its all the other stuff that makes the story have flesh and life! Its the details that are in the world AROUND the story that make it seem immersive.

At least that is what I think.

Indeed. Another one is: boy meets girl, boy and girl fall in love, boy and girl commit suicide. Sounds kinda dull, but Shakespeare fleshed it out into Romeo and Juliet.

[frahse]

Me thinks ye think too much.

(How does it feel?)

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by VydorScope

But that is the point, is it not? You can reduce most stories to something like "Dude kills other dude and goes to jail. The end."

Its all the other stuff that makes the story have flesh and life! Its the details that are in the world AROUND the story that make it seem immersive.

At least that is what I think.

Every story you can think of has already been told, the success of your story is in the telling.