Bloody Children

    MacBeth is not a pretty story--that much can be determined without even delving that deep into the text. As tragic and violent as this play is from the start, however, it should be noted that the play’s intensity only increases throughout the various scenes and acts.
    By Act IV MacBeth is well past the point of no return. With several murders already under his belt (Duncan, the servants, Banquo), Macbeth shows no hesitation in killing a child. If the murder of the above mentioned were not cruel or vicious enough, the murder of MacDuff’s wife and son stands to prove that MacBeth has absolutely no moral compass left in him.
    Typically when we define “the weak” or vulnerable, the young, the old, and the sick are the demographics that are being addressed. In this case, “the weak” is a child and a woman. Preying on the vulnerable is probably one of the monstrous things a person can do, as they cannot do anything to defend themselves. MacBeth does exactly this, which leads us to the conclusion that Act IV is the darkest act in tone so far.
    The most alarming aspect about this deed is that the murder of the child and wife are not even acts of war. They are not killed for political gain, but for the sheer joy of this insane, ambitious psychopath. The intent behind the murders is to hurt MacDuff emotionally. Since this hero has fled to Scotland, MacBeth instead targets those who are closest to him. The other intent behind killing MacDuff’s son is to extinguish his family lines, just as he attempted to murder both Banquo and Fleance This play examines the great lengths MacBeth will go not only to have power, but to keep the power and pass it along throughout generations.
    Another aspect of this act that makes it dark in tone is the fact that MacBeth doesn’t even have to do his own bidding. Contrary to the first murders, (of Duncan and his servants) MacBeth is now powerful enough to hire assassins to ransack the MacDuff household and murder the wife and child. It is obviously immoral to kill, but to be responsible for the murder and not even do the deed oneself is the definition of evil. He is able to kill without getting any blood on his hands, so he isn’t even putting himself at risk.
    Upon completion of Act IV in class, I made a prediction of what was to come in Act V. “There will be bloodshed,” I predicted. “I bet MacDuff will use his grief to empower the tyrannical ruler that we have come to know as MacBeth.”
                                                        Spoiler alert!

   He does...but before he does MacBeth isn’t done with his slaughter of children. In Act V Macbeth kills Young Siward, the son of the Earl of Northumberland who is Malcom and MacDuff’s ally. Again, the lack of remorse for taking a young life is lost on MacBeth, who is only interested in protecting himself and his legacy.
   The bloody child that appears during the witches scene assures MacBeth that "no man born a woman can harm him", which we later learn is because MacDuff was torn out of his mother's womb prematurely. However, it can also be interpreted to be dealing with the bloody children that die at the hands of MacBeth and his men.

The Pros of Poisoning

   In Chapter 11 of “How to Read Literature Like a Professor”, Foster addresses the fact that while in real life a punch in the nose could really just be the result of two boys engaged in horseplay, violence in literature is usually placed in the text to deal with a deeper meaning. There are, of course, many types of violence an author can add to their story. As Foster says, generalizing about the meanings of violence is “nearly impossible”, as there are so many directions an author can go. However, when dealing with poison in a plot, there is often commonality.
   The end of “King Lear” is extremely chaotic. One of the chaotic elements is the love triangle that is occurring between Goneril, Regan, and Edmund. (Gloucester’s illegitimate son) Both ladies are fighting for this man’s love, even though they are already married to the Duke of Albany and Cornwall respectively, and surely the majority  of us are aware that when a woman is vying for the love of the same man as another woman, things escalate quickly--and often result in violence.
   Goneril decided to off the woman who is standing between herself and her man, and the fact that the woman in her way is her very own sister doesn’t matter. In fact, with Cornwall dead, Goneril’s chances over Regan are less than in her favor. So, being the well-mannered, polite, and good little queen that she is, Goneril slips poison into Regan’s drink, killing her.
    Why poison though? That’s what I would like to know. Shakespeare has never been known to be shy with his bloody and gory descriptions. Why are we spared the gruesome details of Regan’s death? Her bloodied body, cut up face, wounded corpse? This is actually the entire point. A murder by poison is actually the best way Goneril could have killed. First of all, most of Shakespeare’s women do not use swords. This type of fighting was far more common amongst the males. though the poisoning results in a death, and therefore is no less lethal than a stab wound, poison is seen as a more feminine and “tidy” way to go about killing---it’s simply less messy.
    The poison can also be symbolic of the poisonous relationship the girls had both with each other and their other sister, Cordelia, but also with their father Lear. It’s not just any woman who does the deed though, it’s Goneril, expert of deception. Goneril is also very sneaky. Therefore, slipping poison into a drink seems more align with something her character would do than would a slashing of the throat or stabbing of the heart.
    The use of poison to kill instead of a knife, sword, or in modern literature, a gun enables the character to do the deed without putting themselves at physical risk. Another “benefit” of poison, is that the rest of the characters may never know for sure who did it. They may have guesses, yes, but the act of slipping poison into food or drink is something done on the sly, out of the public eye. Unlike any other form of murder, poison use doesn't require a great deal of strength, (which is why is is popular among the lady characters) and if it is done properly, the victim will already be dead before they realize they have been poisoned. 
   So the next time you need to seek revenge on an ex or on that jerk who stole your parking spot at the mall, take note. Poison is a great way to go!






DISCLAIMER: The last paragraph was a (bad) attempt at a joke. I do not promote the harming of others in any way.****

   

Marked for Greatness

   After the “only two stories that are retold through generations” conversation, the second biggest concept I learned in beginning playwriting was that you have to have plants and pointers.
    Plants are bits of information an author or playwright gives you that turns out to be important later on in the story. Most of the time, a reader will not know that something is a plant until the climax. A pointer is a clue that leads the reader in a certain direction. My favorite example is from Arthur Miller’s 1947 drama All My Sons, in which *spoiler alert* a gun goes off in Act 3. The gun didn’t come from nowhere people. It was casually included within ten minutes of the opening curtain ever so slyly. Anyway, as Foster mentions in Chapter 21, “You give a guy a limp in Chapter 2, he can’t go sprinting after the train in Chapter 24.” (200)
    This chapter is about physical deformities though. Why did I go into a rant about plants and pointers? Well, if I were to take away one thing from this chapter, it would be that in 97 of 100 cases where a character is saddled with a physical imperfection, it isn’t just to give them a “fatal flaw.” (another lesson from playwriting 101...no character can be perfect; it’s too unrealistic) An author gives a character a marking because it’s important, either to the plot or to the overall arc of the character’s journey throughout the novel.
    Whether it’s Laura Wingfield, who’s limpy leg has left her with an inferiority complex that has caused her to feel isolated from the rest of the world, or Tiny Tim from Charles Dicken’s A Christmas Carol, the imperfections a character faces are most of the time huge clues for signifiant thematic points that an author wants to get across to their readers.
    Additionally, Beth from Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women contracts scarlet fever from a baby she was visiting, and though the purpose of diseases in literature is discussed more at length in Chapter 24, the reasoning behind giving a character a disease is much the same as giving them a physical imperfection.
    In addition to the role it plays in developing the the theme of the plot, physical markings also set a character apart from others. Foster calls this character differentiation. Protagonists who are crucial to the story (and even other main characters) need to be remembered. No one wants to read about a forgettable lead, and an author cannot afford to have you mixing up characters in their stories-- especially if they play an important role in the plot. Therefore, physical imperfections are used to help identify characters for the reader. On a very basic level, the imperfection is a quirk, something that makes the character unique. (Though I would hardly call a missing or damaged body part a mere “quirk.”)
    Physical or mental defects are not something an author just throws in for fun. These traits often symbolize bigger psychological or thematic concepts that an author is trying to get across. Pay attention to characters who are “marked” when you are reading from here on out. They are “marked” for something big to come.

Is That a Symbol?

    I found myself relating very much so to the students that Foster was imitating at the beginning of this chapter. I have been told I am a “black and white thinker”, and for an artsy kid, that’s surprising for most people. I like to be right, and the truth is that all high school students feel the same way. (Clearly, Foster’s college students feel the same need to be correct as well.) I think I speak for the majority of my classmates when I say that when we looking for symbolism we expect them to mean exactly one thing and one thing alone.
    The truth is, it doesn’t work that way. Just as we bring our different worldly experiences and beliefs to the table when we come to school, we similarly bring our varying experiences when we read a book. Therefore, an object, person, setting, or idea does not symbolize the same thing for every single individual. I believe in the back of my mind, I did know this...however what I didn’t remember is that there is an actual term for the “symbolism” if it does mean the same thing for everyone.
                                                            ALLEGORY
    Though I haven’t read “Animal Farm” by George Orwell, I have heard much about it. It has come to be the go-to example of an allegory in literature. That’s beside the point, though interesting to take note of. This chapter deals with symbolism. So if three people can have three different responses as to what an item is symbolic of, how do we know which one is “right”? In a high school English class in which we are given a grade, this is troublesome, as we want to give the best answer to receive the best grade. If different authors can use the same natural landmark, such as a river, to mean different things, can’t the identification of the purpose of the symbol also differ depending on the person and the circumstance?
    An example that came to mind that displays how symbols can stand for a wide variety of things is evident through the 1962 novel “One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest” by Ken Kesey. The novel, which takes place in a mental institution in Oregon has several symbols that represent various things. For instance, the fog machine can represent many different ideas. One suggestion is that it is representative of Chief’s lack of insight. Another suggestion is that it’s his escape from reality, and therefore a “safe place”, away from Nurse Ratched. Yet another explanation is that the fog is representative of the mechanical, mundane way the patients at the institution are under the control of authority. A fog is hazy, therefore if you are in a foggy state, you are unable to determine what it is you are doing. The administration at the hospital intended to maintain control over the patients, a practice that would not have been able to happen if the patients had not been in a foggy state of mind.

Now, Where Have I Seen Her Before?

One of the first things I learned in beginning playwriting sophomore year was that there are pretty much only two types of plots in the world. I know, I know, Thomas Foster says there is ONE so that must be so. Bear with me though, while I attempt to explain my reasoning.
1. Boy meets girl:

• This can unfold in many different ways. Sometimes boy meets girl, it’s love at first sight, and they all live happily ever after. Scratch that...happily ever afters never come that easily. It’s never that simple. However, what is more likely to happen is the two COULD fall in love at first glance, but there is a catch. Their love is forbidden. It can be forbidden by their parents, friends, society, etc. The majority of the plot therefore is dedicated to dealing with how to overcome the obstacles their forbidden love faces. A prime example of this kind of story is one that we all know by heart. “Romeo and Juliet”, a classic tale of forbidden love and the price one is willing to pay for love is known by readers of all levels. From middle school theatre geeks to the highly educated English professors on the Ivy League level, “Romeo and Juliet” is a story we are all familiar with. However, Shakespeare did not invent the forbidden love concept. This is evident in one of Shakespeare’s other works, “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” in which the ancient tale of Pyramus and Thisbe is told by the acting troupe. From Pyramus to Romeo, we are then led to even more modern stories of forbidden love. Leonard Bernstein and Stephen Sondheim’s Broadway musical “West Side Story” is yet another unfolding of a boy meeting a girl, falling in love, and dealing with the repercussions of their feelings toward each other.
• Another option writers could use while still sticking to the “boy meets girl” theme is that they don’t fall in love automatically. This type of plot can be exhibited through the classic fairy tale “Beauty and the Beast.” Belle is afraid of the Beast at first, but in time learns to love him despite his outward appearance and her first impression of him.

Boy meets girl combinations are endless, but no matter what century, geographical location, or hardships you throw at your characters, ultimately the same thing is happening: a male is meeting a female.

2. Adventure Awaits:

• The second plot option is the “Hero’s Call to Adventure.” As discussed in Chapter One, the hero’s journey or quest can be both a physical adventure or something happening inside. Either way, “the real reason for the quest is self-knowledge.” (3) The protagonist has to accomplish a task- and whether that task entails saving a beautiful, fair maiden or finding oneself amidst the chaos of the world, the hero or protagonist must overcome obstacles that are hurdled his or her way.

Whether there are two stories of the world that are passed down generation to generation, or just one, I cannot argue that having the same kinds of stories is beneficial to us as readers, as the more we read and become familiar with the plots, the better understanding we will gain.