This is the place where you can ask your questions about Macbeth, answer one another's questions, and post comments about your understandings to help one another learn. Remember this is NOT education as usual. It is up to you to help one another learn.
106 comments:
I have a question- The first setting is "a desert place". Is that a real desert, or a deserted place? Or both?
Appearance v. reality is going to be a big theme in this play; what examples do you see?
I think it's a deserted. Scotland is very green.
Woohoo! This reminds me of when I read The Tempest next year, that was a good one, by the way, it was a rather good comedy! It wasn't really tragic at all. The wording in both of the books, already, is pretty similar.
Have you ever seen a tumbleweed in a picture of Scotland? I haven't so I think it's probably just deserted.
I agree with bayley, I think it's just a deserted place.
Bayley- Does that mean that green places are always deserted?
What is'Anon'?
Well, Robert, green places are NOT always deserted but she is saying that it is a deserted place as compared to a desert...
does that make sense?
When it says Macbeth has conquered opposing armies does it mean he has led his men to do so as a leader or has he really fought that well to take them on as a soldier? Basically is he more a soldier or leader?
The bleeding captian/seargent should be groaning or something. He talks like he's fine. Shakespeare should have added "oohs" or "ows" or some sort of groan.
Robert- erica answered your question.
Macbeth is a sergant so he plans it but doesn't fight in the battle
In the first act, Shakespeare writes so that the three witches speak in turn, so the first goes first, then the second, then the third and loops back to first. Is it symbolic in any way? If so, what does it mean?
First I'll answer questions:
Austin, in class today, Ms. Smith was explaining the sergeant's monologue and basically what Macbeth did that was heroic. She said that Macbeth killed the guy, "gutted" him, and put is head on a stake. This show that he must have been fighting. But I don't think that the noble guys would want a random soldier to be king for killing a few guys harshly. So I think that Macbeth had a major role in the war, but he did fight too.
Alex, "Anon" is descibed on the left page of where the actual lines of the play are. It says that anon means immediatly.
Justin, about the witch thing, have you also noticed that they rhyme, and when they rhyme, they are also saying it at the same time? I think that they are just so coordinated in a freaky way...why they are, I don't know. I think that it might have to do with the fact that Shakespeare just wanted it to sound more eerie. Because frankly, normal people don't talk "in order" on the spot and stuff like that. I think that he was trying to get across that they aren't normal people!
Does anyone know what Macbeth was talking about when he had his big monologue after the important guys confirm that he will be king????
If anyone here has any questions about the dialogue that aren't really answered on the left hand side of the page, I can really aid you. I read The Tempest, as I mentioned earlier, and in that comment, I meant to say "last year" not "next year". Can't really know exactly that you're going to read a certain book in a year's time, are you? Anyways I'm pretty familiar with the old-English dialogue, so I can help-eth!
When Shakespeare said "a desert place" i think he said that because they had minimal props and no backdrops. So he left the idea of the setting to the audiences imagination so the story becomes real in your mind. To some it might mean an actual desert, to others it could mean an alley where no is around.
I have a question too. In the first act when the witches are talking for the first time, the first witch says "I come, Graymalkin" and then the Second witch says," Paddock calls". Who (Or what) are they?
And Bayley, what do you mean by "Macbeth is a sergant so he plans it but doesn't fight in the battle." Isn't Macbeth a General?
Thanks Marie! And to answer your question...
I think the monologue was a speech to show what he was thinking. At that moment, he was confused and thinking that the first part of the prediction was right, so is it possible that the other parts were? Like the fact that how Macbeth was supposed to become King but Banquo's children would take his place. all these new revelations troubled him deeply, therefore the struggle in his thoughts was shown through this monologue.
Graymalkin and Paddock.
On the little notes on the side it says Graymalkin and Paddock mean are "two demon helpers in the form of a cat and a toad."
I also looked them up and this is what I found:
Graymalkin- "An affectionate name for a gray cat." http://shakespeare.about.com/od/shakespearesplays
/g/graymalkin.htm
Paddock- "A toad." http://shakespeare.about.com/od/shakespearesplays
/g/Paddock.htm
"During the Renaissance it was believed that Satan sent witches malicious spirits to help them carry out their evil deeds. These 'familiars' or 'imps' would appear in animal form. The familiar of the First Witch takes the form of a cat and the familiar of the Second Witch takes the form of a toad (Paddock). The familiar of the Third Witch is not mentioned in the first act but in 4.1, it takes the form of a 'harpy', a nasty creature in Greek mythology with the head and body of a woman and the talons of a bird."
Hope that helps! I understood it a little better after looking them up, too.
Responding to tristanl - Thouest is great-eth to be able-eth to understand-eth thee ancient and odd-eth Shakespearean language.
Responding to annasohpiar- That makes a lot of sense. If he wrote "a large field twenty-two meters across with small and large boulders scattered randomly with green grass and moss", then a lot of theaters wouldn't be able to reproduce the play in an accurate way. Shakespeare obviously knew that, so he kept it simple.
Responding to ericak- No, your comment does not make sense. Do you mean that it's deserted like a desert?
I have a question too! Do you guys know how the sergeant was wounded?
Who is Malcolm?
Also, why do you think there were three witches? Not two or one...etc.
megg- the sergeant was probably wounded in battle. I don't really think it is important. The wound was probably just to show that the battle was somewhat brutal and not easily won. Also, sergeant are kind of high up in the ranking of an army which shows that the powerful people are still in danger. But i am just guessing so we will see.
Does anyone know what hurlyburly means?
Does anyone know if Banqou and Macbeth are related in any way? I'm oober confused about this.
BrainC- I think hurlyburly is a movie or a play that has something to with witches? Try google-ing it.
BrianC If you look in your macbeth book most of the vocabulary is on the left page, but it means like an uproar or uprising Just so you know
Smith- An example of appearance v. reality that I recognized was the witches. The way people see the witches is as creepy things that "look not like the inhabitants of the earth." When in reality they were just the poor, the widowed and basically just the out casted women of society.
Are the thunder and lightning part of the witches’ powers in the play? Also the word hurly-burly has an ‘s on the end of it so does that make it a possessive or is it some sort of a contraction? Graymalkin is capitalized so does that mean it’s a name or a city or something? Also, the witches seem to be able to see the future and that’s why they know they will meet Macbeth.
conorm- the thunder and lightning are a mood-setter. You know in all the movies you see the haunted house or the house where someone thought evil lives, or anytime you are somewhere that is supposed to be scary there is thunder and lightning that make it seem eerie and spooky.
The bloody sergeant says that Macbeth deserves his name. Was Macbeth named after someone in history?
Okay, my questions pertain more to the video clips (so I might just have to read farther, but I wanted to get everyone's opinion.) Why in two of the three clips, were there voodoo dolls? Are the witches actually controlling the future, or just predicting it? And why in the first clip was that one witch drooling all over her sisters, was it just for the strange effect, because it sure worked for me? Thanks!
In response to peter; maybe it means that he lived up to his (fictional) ancestry, because I can't find anything otherwise, but I don't know, that's a good question!
Peter-
I think that it means he desreves the name of "Brave Macbeth" (according to the sgt.). So yes, his name is Macbeth, but the sgt thinks that he deserves it because of Macbeth's valor in battle
Kailyn-
I was wondering the same thing about the drooling sister! I thought maybe she was just crazy or something but it very well could have been for effect. And I think they’re kind of predicting and controlling the future. Maybe they could have the basic idea of what’s going to happen but is someone tries to stop or change something set for the future, the witches can’t control what’s to happen after.
Annasophia, I think that is right, I read Shakespeare in the 6th grade and I do remember my teacher saying something about how Shakespeare leaving some things to the immagination of the reader. I just haven't seen him do it to this extreme, he usually leaves small things up to the readers immagination, not the backdrop of the play. I don't know, can anyone else help?
johathanp- Malcolm is King Duncan's son
Kaitlyn and Chealsea-
About the drooling witch, I think that that specific witch was the one getting all the information about the future from the devil, and when she is having her "visions", she is so enveloped in it that she can't think right and do normal habitual things like swallowing. And I also think that she is the one that is getting all the information because the I remember in the movie that she was the first one to figure out that Macbeth was going to be king, if that makes any sense.
Also, thanks, Justin, for the help on the Macbeth monologue.
I was wondering about the desert place as well. I think i agree with Bayley, Erica, and other people though. It's probably just deserted and not a desert in the sence of the sahara. It seems like it would have to be a more desolate scenery based on the events. A populated area wouldn't work.
Kaitlyn and Chealsea-
About the drooling witch, I think that that specific witch was the one getting all the information about the future from the devil, and when she is having her "visions", she is so enveloped in it that she can't think right and do normal habitual things like swallowing. And I also think that she is the one that is getting all the information because the I remember in the movie that she was the first one to figure out that Macbeth was going to be king, if that makes any sense.
Also, thanks, Justin, for the help on the Macbeth monologue.
Yeah i agree with Kelsey. It's got to mean deserted. A populated scene definitly wouldn't work for this.
I bet that the setting kind of resembles a mix between 2 of the videos we saw: the roman polansky and the modernenized version.
Kailyn and Chelsea- I know what was with the drooling? But it seemed she was kinda in her own world until they all started chanting. Maybe she's just crazy...
The desert isnt exactly followed in the fims.And unless its part of the coast the rest of Scotland is all but barren
I just want to say good job to everybody! we all seem to be very succinct in answering and asking questions.
I am wondering why the witches disappeared in the first two film, but in the third they went into a cellar. If Macbeth wanted to know so badly of what they were saying why did not he at least try to open the door? I do not like how they go into a cellar because the script says they disappear not walk away. I just thought if I saw someone walk away from me and I wanted to talk to them I would follow. Is it important to the plot that they disappear or am I caring about nothing?
brianf- I think you are just caring about nothing. Ha ha just kinding! But I think they did that in that movie because the director wanted it to happen that way. Just like in the comparison essay we have to do, its just the way that the particular version shows it.
Good observation Marie. Yeah, I was wondering about the drooling sister too. When I was watching the clip it looked like the other witch sisters were helping her out, but it also seemed as though they were relying on her for information, like she was important.
Sorry to keep bringing up the drooling witch, but do you think that all that drool on the actresses mouth was her own or some weird fake saliva?
I agree with brianf. I don’t like how the witches went into a cellar in the third film. If I wanted to know something I would just open the door. It is also weird because in the first and second films the witches disappeared.
Anna Sophia- I think that the drool all over the drooling witch isn't real. My reasoning is that who in the world could drool that much and not have bleeding, chapped lips? Also I agree that they must be relying on her for the information she produces but why is she so helpless?
In regards to the deserted place question I think a combination of all the things everyone has said is correct. I agree that being Scotland it is probably not a big Texas like desert and that instead it is probably a desolate, uninhabited place. However it also could be a sandy, desert like costal area. Also I think these things are somewhat connected because geographical deserts got the name deserts because they are desolate, isolated, barren and seemingly uninhabitable if I am not mistaken. I also think it was a good idea to just say the setting is deserted so that it would be easy to create in a theatre. I don’t think it is a good idea to use the movies to interpret the books because the movies are someone’s interpretations of the books and do not or have any connection to the ideas or intentions of the writer. I don’t think things that are not mentioned ala the drooling witch should be talked about as an interpretation of the book.
KatieZ- Banquo is Macbeth’s friend and a general in King Duncan’s army like he is.
PeterH-I agree with those who said he was simply living up to his name of general and bravery. By the way Macbeth IS a general…
I don’t think the witches know the future. I think they somehow figured out that he would become the thane (what is that anyway) and told he would become King so that he would attempt to do so and so that anarchy would eventually break out.
I don’t know if we are allowed to use this or not but when I don’t understand a passage I go to no fear Shakespeare online and it provides you with a modernized translation of the whole book…
So far I am not at all into this play. What do you guys think about it…
hey, what do all these titles mean?
I mean the title "Thane of Cawdor" as the main example.
Bernardo, I believe these titles are to describe their position and of what. It's a kind of caste system, different names have different rankings.
I agree with Erica it's just another title like duke or count.
annasophia- idk thats a good question! What do you think?
But I also noticed that the sister's depended on her as if she had the most power.
Good point Bayley, is the drooling witch possibly the craziest but also the best witch? In the times that Shakespeare wrote this, it may be true.
I have one more question on the subject, how high is Thane compared to other titles? Is it a relativley low ranking, or is it high? If no one knows how could we find out?
Bernardo- I'm not totally sure on this but I think a Thane is equivalent to a lord or nobleman. I think they're just a step or two below king, but once again I'm not sure. You could probably find more information on like a Macbeth backound site.
Bernardo, I think it's pretty high, it's a feudal lord. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thane
Everyone is wondering why there are three witches and why there is First Witch, Second Witch and Third Witch.
Well, there's three because three is a common number in fairy tales and other stories. (Ex- three little pigs, three chances for bunny Foo-foo, three wishes...) The number three has a reputation in stories. Less witches would not allow as much dialogue between them to give the reader info in the story. No witches would probably change the play drastically. You could have Macbeth looking into a fortune-telling globe or a magic 8 ball, I guess...
Also I don't think their numbering is significant. It just keeps them recognizable in the script.
Does anyone know who Macdonwald is? The seargent mentions him briefly.
1: a free retainer of an Anglo-Saxon lord; especially : one resembling a feudal baron by holding lands of and performing military service for the king
-Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
does that answer it?
Bernardo- I found the definition online in the dictionary.
Main Entry: thane
Pronunciation: \ˈthān\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English theyn, from Old English thegn; akin to Old High German thegan thane and perhaps to Greek tiktein to bear, beget
Date: before 12th century
1: a free retainer of an Anglo-Saxon lord; especially : one resembling a feudal baron by holding lands of and performing military service for the king
2: a Scottish feudal lord
Thanks, I'll look it up. I can't keep up with these conversations, on to the witches!!
I think that the witches are past present and future. We are saying the drooling witch is the "third witch" right? The third witch is the one who said that Macbeth will be king, so she would be future. I couldn't find it again, but someone said that they thought the drooling witch was the craziest and yet the strongest. I think this might be a metaphor for the future. I think it might be saying that the future is never what you would expect it to be, but it's the most powerful force.
If Macbeth is going to be King then why will Banquo's children be kings?
Maybe Macbeth will have no children?
Bernardo, that's a very good point! I would also like to point out that the drooling witch seems the youngest...maybe the one for the past is the oldest?
Thanks Austin and Bayley, I was typing when you published, I really can't keep up. :(
Bayley, possibly because Macbeth doesn't have any children and they maybe next in line for the throne?
I think Banquo's kids are going to overthrow Macbeth the same way Macbeth is going to overthrow Malcom. I don't know how that is, but it would be a nice dose of Irony.
Bernardo- No problem :) but you made a good point with past, present, and future. The future is usually the strongest but the most unstable. Then the middle witch would be the present and have the most insight. Then the oldest which could be the past and know what has gone on to lead to these events.
Does anyone know if there is significance when the three witches speak according to their respective "numbers"? The first witch speaks, then the second, then the third...
We're in class right now. Who else thinks that watching people act it out makes it easier to understand
leah- I think that they always speak with first witch, then second, then third, to follow the motif of past, present, and future. The first witch is past, the second present, and the third witch is future. That being said, I think there is a time when they speak out of order, or am I imagining it? If they do speak out of order I'm either wrong, or Shakespeare is trying to send a message about, past, present and future.
Robert - I think that Macdonwald is an important guy that Macbeth killed during the war who might have been a major general or something... I don't know. But he is a minor character who we will probably never hear about again in the story, so I wouldn't worry about it.
Brian, I was a little slow (sorry!) but maybe the witches go in to the cellar for a more realistic view point. If someone slams a door in your face you might get annoyed, and you might not be able to reopen the door, but it is probably more realistic then really vanishing, maybe Polansky's version "could have really happened." Maybe that would make the gore seem even more freaky.
Does anyone else find it interesting how the witches rhyme and actually make sense?
And does anyone else find it fascinating how when you maybe read Shakespeare at first it doesn't make sense, but when you read and interpret everything comes together?
I love that analogy with past present and future (witches) - it makes sense!
Carolyn- I agree that it is pretty cool how the witches rhyme and make sense at the same time. But I also think that Shakespeare wrote it that way so it made them sound magical, like they were always speaking in spells. Because in a lot of books, movies, and plays that have witches, haven’t you noticed that the spells are either in Latin or they rhyme. So I think it was just Shakespeare’s way of showing even more that the witches are “fantastical” and mysterious. And also, I just love Macbeth so I’m excited about it all!
I think that a lot of characters in this book seem to be one then, and then actually are a different thing. The witches, for example, seem to just be crazy, but by planting the idea of Macbeth being king in his head, they setting to help make it happen. Maybe they are smarter than they seem? Same with Macbeth, he appears to the king as a kind and loyal person, while in his mind he is plotting to kill him.
Sammie, Mariep had a good explanation as to why the sister was so dependent upon the other two witches.
paulab- I think the witches do know the future because Shakespeare wrote this story for King James I and he was in to witchcraft. Also, the witches powers play out later in the story and are necessary to the tale of Macbeth.
I think Shakespeare is somewhat annoying to read because it is so poetic and prophetic and yet I barely have clue what the Great S Man is talking about. I read the text about twice and then look at cliff notes and read everyones notes. It takes forever!
robetc-Love the reference to Bunny Foo-Foo
Bernardo- good assumption with the witches. I don't think we have read far enough to tell if they really do represent the past, present, and future. Maybe though
bayleyk-scene 4 verse 5 talks about the next heir to the thrown. I agree with what bernoardo said
Thanks for everyones comments on the witches, their characters are really starting to clear up in my head.
Carolynf- Sspeare is so famous because each time you read one of his scenes, sentences, words, or stories you get new meaning out of it every time
I find Lady Macbeth extremely creepy. Also, macbeth's choice of a wife shows me something about his character, and not just the fact that he has awful taste in women!
Does anyone know if the people back in Shakespeare's time understood the plays he wrote? Maybe the educated nobles did, but what about the groundlings? Were regular people that eloquent back then?
Scene 4 verse 5 the former thane of cawdor sounded pretty noble before he was executed. Could this be a foreshadow or am I reading too much into it?
Anna Sophia, you do bring up a good point in the fact that his wife isn't so great, but I am wondering if it was an arranged marriage because those were common, what do you think?
erica and annasophie- I think it was a annranged marriage as well. She isn't the supportive wife you would want... Lady Macbeth is kinda really creepy scary crazy lady.
I agree with the above comments, but I wonder what causes Lady Macbeth to be this way? Did she have a problematic childhood? Why is she so insane, and bent on evil?
Robert, I don't know. But I like the third Lady Macbeth the most. They seemed the happiest together.
I think Lady Macbeth is simply an insane control freak. She wants things to be her way. Maybe she grew up getting everything she wanted and as she got older, she wanted to continue that. Lady Macbeth seems like a witch to me. Maybe she was an original witch and left that life as an old hag for something better. She’s crazy and that’s all I know.
Just thought of something…
Lady Macbeth doesn’t seem to care about anyone else, only herself, and will stop at nothing for her to get her way.
Well, I think she cares about Macbeth, but partially only because he might be king.
That's true. But I think if he becomes king, she'll be able to have more of what she wants, the way she wants it. She'll have more power than she does now.
Why do you guys think that the Lady Macbeth's were so different from eachother?
What I was wondering was why (so far) are all the women in this play manipulating wicked people, maybe I am just paranoid, but do you think it is a statement about the time? The witches are women, and Lady Macbeth too. Shakespeare even uses a reference once to a goddess, (the goddess of war of course!) Seems slightly negative towards girls, don't you think, or is it just me?
In regards to Annasophia, I might be wrong but I believe that people used these words in speech, just not in the poetic way with the analogies that Shakespeare did, so yes I think that the groundlings probably could understand it, at least better then I can without having to pause and think about a visual performance after every line.
Meg-
Maybe it’s just the different views people had on Lady Macbeth. All of them are very different but it also could be, partly, who the actresses were. One may take the role a bit differently than the other actresses.
Kailyn-
I totally agree! I hadn't thought about the women and why they’re so negative... It may have something to do with the time period. Anyone else have any ideas?
Okay- I don't get why Macbeth wouldn't just kill the heir to the throne, instead of the King himself. By killing the heir, the King will have to appoint a new one, so he has a chance to be named heir. And if he was, I don't think that he would have to wait long, considering how frail and ancient the actual King appears to be. It seems like the more logical way to achieve his goal, don't you think?
I think that the reason all the women are the evil ones is because back then women were considered to be "good" and innocent. The men fought, comited crimes, etc. while women simply acted as wives, mothers and daughters. Of course, a large reason why women didn't commit as many crimes was because of their minimal rights and the way they were raised. But, I do believe that possibly Shakespear was trying to reflect a new idea. Rather than having the man be bad and wicked, he chose to have it be a woman. Also, the evil is more powerful coming from the woman at times. Like when Lady Macbeth speaks of how she would bash her newborn's head if she had sworn to it. That has a much bigger impact and seems a lot harsher than if a man had said that about his child.
This is a really random question that has nothing to do with what everyone is talking about.
This is the Macbeth Act 1 blog. Will we have a different blog now that we're in Act 2?
Thank you John, Paula, and Kailyn. I think I am starting to understand it now, thanks for your input.
Robert- don't diss shakespeare!!!!!
ooh, ow, gasping etc. are something that the actor ads in where he sees fit. If shakespeare wrote in ooh ow, etc. it wouldn't have the nice flow.
sydney-i agree completly. when he kills the king wouldn't his heir just become king? then he would have to kill him to!
I agree with sydney and Leslie! Why wouldn't Macbeth just kill the heir?
I was thinking that maybe if he killed the heir, would he be the only heir left? Or are their others. Maybe that is why he wants to kill the king. Also, if he kills the king, wouldn't the heir just take the throne? Not Macbeth?
I can answer you somewhat person above my post. No he would not be the only heir to the throne if he killed both the king and his son. The way the system worked insured there was always another heir. The only thing that really happens is the previous royal bloodline dies.
Annasophia that's a nice essay you wrote. But i agree. Did people actually here that said and know what was happening? I have to analyze the text line by line to get a thing he says and I consider myself a well educated youngling. And these people who never went to school no what he's saying? Those people must have been crrrazzy good.
Anna Sophia, I have a pretty good feeling that the groundlings did not have much of an idea aboutwhat Shakespeare's poems or plays were actually about, or how big of an impact it was on the future. And for act 4 scene 5, it does look like foreshadowing when I read it as well, then again I do know what happends to Macbeth in the end.
Shakespeare is always so complicated and I think that is what bugs me about reading it. It would make so much sense just to kill all the sons and poison the king. Then again, that would be a lot easier to say than to do.
Anyone nervous for the Act 1 test tomorrow? I know I am, I heard it was hard.
Post a Comment