Choices affect life style. What is the purpose of Macbeth? In both Macbeth and Great Expectations, we are presented with a character whose choices shape the plot and direction of the story. In Macbeth, it can be argued that Shakespeare uses Macbeth’s choices in order to deliver a moral lesson – that crime does not pay. It can be suggested that Shakespeare presents this character in a negative light throughout the play in order to have the audience view his choices and actions negatively too.
Shakespeare utilises ‘Henry IV Part 1’ to demonstrate that how you initially perceive an individual may not be a true representation of their character. Whilst a larger cohort holds the public view of individuals, it may not necessarily be correct in defining an individual’s behaviour. Throughout the play, Shakespeare wishes to display the complexity of various characters and the substantial layers that are present in their temperament. Harry Percy, also called Hotspur is a character that has an extremely strong public perception of his character. Hotspur is regarded as an “ever-valiant and approved Scot” (I, i, 54) who is referred to as a “wasp-stung and impatient fool.” (I, iii, 235) This characterisation is the very reason that leads him to acquire the name Hotspur as mentioned by Worcester who
This is also an early use of characterisation which lets the audience know that Macbeth’s character now has a spark of ambition in his mind. Furthermore, we notice that Macbeth generally speaks in “lambic ventonater” which elevates him above the commoner’s “prose”, thusly making, his conflict with himself more important. Through Shakespeare’s development of ambition, he can see how Macbeth is internally conflicted by these powerful thoughts and desires within his heart. Secondly, Gender within the play has been disturbed
Moreover, the different mediums enable the audience to explore the performative nature of identity and the individualistic nature of ambition and how the different contexts respond to and portray this. Ambition and identity in Richard the Third are overwhelmingly portrayed in a negative light, ultimately resulting in dire consequences; in an Elizabethan context individualism and ambition reflected a person striving to grasp what was not due to them - ultimately, opposing God’s will. Richard, in the play, is represented as both villain and protagonist. We are made aware of Richards duplicitous nature and his evil aspirations as early as Act 1 Scene 1 where he states “I am determinèd to prove a villain” a self referential (and metadramatic in nature) pun which brings about questions of determinism and free will, themes that are explored throughout the play; there is ambiguity around whether or not Richard actually has autonomy over his nefarious deeds, which he goes about plotting. In keeping with his Elizabethan context, Shakespeare can not be seen to oppose the chain of being, the hierarchical chain of the period where a king was at the top,
Perspectives within a literary text tend to be depicted in different ways in order to confront the responder, challenge perceptions and promote a varied perception of the human condition. This depiction of conflicting perspectives creates a makeup of the entire construction of the text, as it effectively creates a cause for conflict; the protagonist of a story very rarely does not have a differing perspective on an issue to the antagonist of the story, inevitably leading to conflict, and therefore, a story line. This notion of conflicting perspectives is powerfully expressed through various textural forms, as shown through William Shakespeare’s 1399 dramatic text, Julius Caesar, Mark Haddon’s 2003 novel, The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, and Sylvia Plath’s 1966 poem Morning Song. Throughout Julius Caesar, Shakespeare effectively utilises textual form to shape the responder’s understanding of the conflicting perspectives surrounding the personality of Marcus Brutus. Throughout the dramatic literature medium, Brutus experiences many different forms of conflicting perspectives relating to his own sense of identity as well as his relationships to those around him.
By portraying a sense that ambition is starting to push away at Macbeth’s loyal and honourable qualities, Shakespeare can effectively convey the personal conflict constantly happening within Macbeth’s mind and heart. This serves the further increase the tension of the play as the audience starts to ponder what side of Macbeth is eventually going to win the mental battle, his good side or his evil, ambitious side. Both have man vs. man conflicts, where characters are fighting each other. There is also a man vs. society conflict in each, regarding the situations that cause them to fight and their lack of control over their fate. There is also man vs. technology/supernatural.
How does Shakespeare show duality in his play Macbeth? The play ‘Macbeth’ is set in Scotland in the 16th century. It was based in an era where patriarchy was widespread and women had very little rights or freedom. In the opening scene of the play, three witches make a statement that sums up the whole theme of the play “Fair is foul and foul is fair”. The key phrase in this sentence is “Fair is foul” as it tells us that Shakespeare is already influencing us to see things differently and allowing us to see a different aspect of what can be classed as “fair” or “foul”.
ENG2DB Tuesday, May 6, 2014 Word Count: 1287 The Allocation of Responsibility for Immoral Actions in Things Fall Apart and Macbeth Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe and Macbeth by William Shakespeare both demonstrate the ill effects of excessive ambition and pride. The protagonists of both texts act in a way that would normally be appalling and unforgivable. However, the authors make the audience tolerant, and even sympathetic, towards Okonkwo and Macbeth. This is done by portraying the characters as not fully responsible for their actions. Okonkwo and Macbeth are both heavily influenced by other characters, fuelled by the expectations of their societies, and driven to act based on their tragic flaw.
In this sense, the audience is able to connect with the characters through the dialogue and stage directions. When measured against, Whelan’s, Accrington pals, Whelan’s motive was also to portray a real representation but to distinguish the dramatic contrast between the men at the front and the women left behind outside the war; to face the social changes, deprivation and self reliance. It also differs as it is a surrealist drama combining fact with fantasy fiction. This has a different effect on the audiences interpretation as we are not entirely sure of the dramatists intentions of what we interpret.. Nevertheless, both dramatists incorporate the theme of comradeship and team work in their plays, again with stark differences.
Both Macbeth and The Destructors explore the theme of desires. However, the structure of Macbeth and the Destructors are very different as Macbeth is a play and The Destructors is a short story. William Shakespeare uses soliloquies to tell us what Macbeth is thinking so we always know what his desires are and what motivates him, this would have made it easier for the audience to follow Macbeths train of thought during the play. In The Destructors we never know what T is thinking because Grahame Greene has written the story in the third person. This makes it harder as a reader to infer what T’s desires actually are and what his motivations are.