Evil Ambition

One of the things that struck me most during our lecture with Professor Kassel was our discussion of the nature of evil and how it is represented in the play. Professor Kassel said that he believes that evil is everywhere, a piece of everything. He said that he was planning on using this idea in his performance of Macbeth by having the Weird Sisters possess certain characters in the play when they would seem most susceptible to embody evil. While reading the end of Macbeth I kept thinking about this last class in McKenna Theater and this portion of our lecture. I found myself examining the theme of evil and asking myself “do the Weird sisters really represent evil?”

I don’t think they do. First of all, they are three women who seem to tell the future.  Therefore, in my eyes they represent The Fates and although commonly represented as evil, they actually aren’t. Disney movies such as Hercules and other pop culture products have construed this idea, but in Greek mythology the fates were deciders of lives. Together they had the power to grant one a good life, a bad one or some sort of life in between these two extremes (greekmythology.com). If Shakespeare was modeling his weird sisters after The Fates then I would assume that they are not evil but that they are only bestowing evil on Macbeth.

When I came to this conclusion I began to ask myself how the theme of ambition could play into this. It is widely agreed upon that Macbeth is a play about ambition but how can someone be ambitious, a word signaling a desire or plan to change, when their fate is already decided? Is Macbeth’s fate already decided?

In Greek mythology no one was willing to cross The Fates (greekmythology.com). This was assumedly because they had the power not only to decide a person’s fate, but to change that decision at any moment. If this is the case, then Macbeth’s fate is not decided and if it is not decided then there is room for him to be ambitious. Although, Macbeth is not only ambitious, he’s greedy and disrespectful of those who bestowed this knowledge upon him. Macbeth attempts not only to gain the thrown for himself but for his children as well, determining to kill Banquo and his family even though The Weird Sisters had decided that Macbeth was not to beget Kings. In addition, Macbeth calls the sisters “Hags” and demands answers of them, though he has done nothing to deserve answers (IV.I, 64). Therefore, maybe it is only because of Macbeth’s greed and disrespect of The Fates that they decide that he will die in the way he does. In the end Macbeth claims that life “is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing” (V.V, 25-27). Maybe this is not to say that life is meaningless, but that the “idiot”, or common man, cannot control it. Maybe he's only saying that there is no point in being ambitious in one’s own right. I wonder if Shakespeare is trying to tell his audience that instead of taking matters into their own hands that they should appeal to a higher power?

Strength, Ego & Evil

The characters in Shakespeare’s plays are so entertaining, it’s no wonder that his plays are still being studied, produced and enjoyed today. The three characters that most affected me the in the first two acts of Much Ado About Nothing  are Beatrice, Benedick and Boracchio.

Beatrice’s character exudes confidence. She is firm in her beliefs and does not seem to care that others disagree with her. She is able to express her beliefs in intelligent and amusing ways. She counsels her cousin Hero, against her father, in front of him. Beatrice tells Hero it is in her best interest to say, “Father as it please me”(2.1.47)  instead of “Father as it please you”(2.1.45) in regards to choosing a husband.  Considering that Beatrice is Leonato’s ward, it is interesting that Beatrice does not fear his scorn at her advisement of Hero.  She is so resolute in her position not to marry that she turns down the Prince, Don Pedro’s marriage proposal and then compliments him.  She tells him, “Your grace is too costly to wear everyday” (2.1.287).  This is another example of Beatrice’s disdain for marriage. Beatrice possesses many admirable qualities but her disregard for being a financial burden on her uncle seems selfish. Yet, when discussing his niece’s position on marriage, Leonato does not mention money.  If he’s not concerned about it, the reader shouldn’t be either.  Could Beatrice’s attributes outweigh her financial burden?  Don Pedro notices Beatrice’s “merry heart” (2.1.274) and her uncle speaks of how Beatrice “often dreamt of unhappiness and waked herself with laughing” (2.1302-303). Beatrice’s disposition seems like an attribute to the household and is a jovial person. She is even revels in her dislike for Benedick, so much so that his return is the first that she inquires about. She considers herself superior to him in wits and she even refers to him as a “stuffed man” (1.1.47).  Beatrice’s abhorrent feelings for Benedick and marriage remind me of the famous quote from another Shakespeare play, Hamlet, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”.  Could Beatrice just think that she’ll never find a match so she rejects marriage  and might she have a bit of a secret crush on Benedick? She has taken notice of his relationships with women. The messenger comments on Bennedick, “And a good soldier too, lady” but Beatrice says “And a good soldier to a lady, but what is he to a lord?” (2.1.43-44). She considers Benedick a lady’s man and questions his real worth.

Benedick thinks Beatrice is awful. When she enters he asks Don Pedro to send him “to the word’s end” (21.1230) so that he can avoid her. He thinks that she indirectly insulted him but she knew it was him all the while. His description of the account and his feelings about Beatrice is displayed with the most eloquent language.    In this day age I think a man would just say that the woman was a “bitch’ and move on. The lines Benedick speaks in 2.1. 209-227 are an excellent example of the beauty of language and how Shakespeare deployed it.  The conviction he feels about his dislike of Beatrice is extreme. The notion that people would sin so that they go to hell and get away from Beatrice (2.1.225) is comical. The quickness in which Shakespearean characters are able to change their minds about a love interest is prominent factor when reading his works.   In Twelfth Night Olivia readily accepts Sebastian over Cesario and in  A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Demetrius doesn’t protest when he ends up with his stalker, Helena.  When Benedick finds out that Beatrice is allegedly madly in love with him, he changes his feeling towards her instantly. Are Beatrice’s initial ideas about Benedick warranted? Is he a fool? Is he so viscous towards because she deflates his ego or because he is hurt because he secretly likes her?  Is it a case of feel/think one way but say and do another? 

In complete contrast to the light hearted teasing and talks of match making and betrothal in the first two acts of the play, there is Borrachio. He is just plain evil.  He is aligned with Don Pedro’s black sheep of a brother Don Jon, and his sole purpose is to help him make everyone unhappy.   In one fell swoop he wants to, deceive Don Pedro, torment Claudio, ruin innocent Hero’s reputation and destroy Leonato. This character is The Emperor from Star Wars evil!  It is also remarkable that Shakespeare could craft a chain of results from one act of deception.

It will be interesting to see how these three elements, strength, ego and evil work together through the play.  Will the strength be weakened? Will the ego be put aside and will good overcome evil all in the name of love?

Shylock and Bassanio

                What stood out to me most in Act IV of Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, other than all of the incredibly confusing discussion between the characters about the different deals being upheld and broken, was many of the passages in scene one, around lines sixty to seventy on page 1160. After Shylock’s long speech, we hear Bassanio determine that his response “is no answer” (4.1.62) to which Shylock replies “I am not bound to please thee with my answers” (4.1.64). This interchange to begin with was really interesting because despite how Shylock already seemed, he just keeps getting worse and worse as it goes on. His speech from lines thirty-four to sixty-one completely circles around how he simply refuses to give an answer, and it seems like he’s just trying to waste time and frustrate Bassanio enough so that he will just agree to anything as long as he can be away from Shylock.

                While all of this was intriguing, the quote that really caught my eye in this portion was what came next, when Bassanio asks “Do all men kill the things they do not love?” and Shylock responds, “Hates any man the thing he would not kill?” and then finally Bassanio says, “Every offense is not a hate at first” (4.1.65-67). It just seems so much like this interchange shows so vividly what types of people these two are. While I am not the biggest Bassanio fan either, it just shows how much more human he seems to be than Shylock. He is so incredulous that this man just wants to take the life out of anything and everything that ever could possibly irritate him, as most people probably would be, and Shylock feels like this is such normal behavior that it is chilling. Plus, to make it all even more of a moment, Bassanio is trying to make Shylock understand through simple terms what he is getting at and Shylock not only contradicts him but uses his own words to do so, which just really makes him seem awful. Finally, Bassanio’s final sentence almost seems like it could have been the end of the argument, with Shylock coming out on top, had it not been delivered powerfully, but the two do continue discussion in the story. Again, Bassanio just seems so overwhelmed by Shylock’s mere personality; it is as though just for a moment Bassanio and the reader have the same emotions.

                The rest of Act IV had many other good moments and plenty of sections which I simply could not wrap my head around, but this page in particular really stood out to me just because of that last interchange between the two men. I really loved the first line Bassanio said which I mentioned about all men killing the “things they do not love,” which was what made me stop and really analyze the passage, and I just felt like what I found offered such a glaring view of Shylock’s true character.  The fact that he does not immediately realize that not everything warrants death, that he needs to be told this is just so indicative of so many things about him.

Albany, Tellin' It Like It Is

If you ask me, Regan is more horrific than her sister--just because she witnesses and endorses the eye-gouging in Act III and has the audacity to suggest Gloucester smell his way to Dover--but Goneril is pretty awful too. By virtue of being the eldest of Lear's daughters, it stands to reason that Regan takes cues from her. (We see in 2.4 how they collaborate to strip Lear of his train. It's as if they feed on each other's nastiness in snowballing the matter.) But I wanted to take a look at what Albany has to say about his beloved wife in 4.2, as the language is particularly graphic and condemning.

Allow me to preface this reading with two thumbs up for Albany, who defies his "monster" of a mistress though she bests him as a soldier (4.5.5). He is the only character who has changed allegiances thus far, the only one who as opted for action over passivity. If Goneril and Regan are "unnatural" for all but disowning their feminine sides--that is, their innate desire to nurture and keep the peace--then Albany is "natural" for performing the more masculine function of maintaining order by at least giving Goneril a piece of his mind and refusing to fight her battle against Lear and his French allies. I hope he doesn't die in Act V.

"O Goneril!...I fear your disposition," Albany cries upon accosting his wife (4.2.30-2). "Disposition" here is a particularly apt pun, denoting mood, physical condition, and displacement, according to the OED. This one statement, therefore, foreshadows Goneril's fall from power (which we sense is inevitable; she is a villain after all) and the deterioration of her physical self (her "body," or following of soldiers). A little close reading, and we know she's going to get creamed by the French.

That nature, which contemns it origin,
Cannot be bordered certain in itself.
She that herself will sliver and disbranch
From her material sap, perforce must wither
And come to deadly use. (4.2.33-7)

The imagery here speaks to Goneril's unnaturalness as a creature that bites the hand that feeds it. Sap here, to continue to the extended tree metaphor, symbolizes blood; and material sap may be considered flesh. Disbranching, then, is dismemberment. This alludes to the gouging of Gloucester's eyes (which Goneril, admittedly, has nothing to do with) and to the dismissal of King Lear from his status as king and father. He who bestowed upon Goneril her royal blood, her life, and her legacy is cast off, but not without repercussions.

Albany continues by calling Goneril and her sister "Tigers" (41)--predatory, carnivorous--then "barbarous," "degenerate," and "vile." Perhaps this is Shakespeare demonstrating through his word choice that self-predation, a tendency to attack oneself via one's kin, is what separates man from beast or at least that which is humane from that which is barbaric. To show his humanity, Albany resists the urge to dismember her ("dislocate and tear/ They flesh and bones" (66-7)) because she is a woman in form and must therefore harbor some of that womanly essence he has been taught to respect. I think Shakespeare realizes that his female villains are all the more provoking for being so far from what we expect a woman to be by her nature.