WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE'S MACBETH: How does Lady Macbeth persuade Macbeth to murder Duncan?

How does Lady Macbeth persuade Macbeth to murder Duncan?

Lady Macbeth is adamant to become queen after she reads the letter that Macbeth sent to her about his unusual meeting with the witches. The letter also declares Macbeth’s promotion as the Thane of Cawdor. Lady Macbeth then delivers a vicious soliloquy that amplifies her strength and will to murder Duncan which completely overshadows Macbeth’s will to do the same.

Before Macbeth returns home, Lady Macbeth criticizes Macbeth’s flaws and feels that he will not kill the king. In Act 1 Scene 5, she says “ Yet do I fear thy nature, it is too full o’th’ milk of human kindness to catch the nearest way.” This shows that she thinks Macbeth is too noble to carry out the murder. She is afraid that Macbeth’s kind nature will threaten their chance of gaining power and achieving their goals. She plots ways to convince her husband to murder Duncan.

Firstly, she uses the form of flattery. She calls him, “Great Glamis, Worthy Cawdor, Greater than both by all hail hereafter.” Macbeth is convinced because usually wives do not address them by their titles. Lady Macbeth is manipulative and tries to increase self-pride so that he would do as she commands. She also tells him on what he could achieve once he becomes king. She tries to boost his confidence so that the plan to murder King Duncan can be executed. She agrees to take on most of the work by saying, “Leave all the rest to me.” She is afraid of giving Macbeth too much work least he spills the beans.

When Macbeth declares that he has changed hi mined to kill Duncan, Lady Macbeth is enraged. She calls him a coward and disgraces his manhood. She retorts, “When you durst do it, then you were a man” (Act 1 scene 7). She also compares his willingness to carry through the plan of murder with his ability to carry out a sexual act. “Was hope drunk where you dressed yourself……such I account thy love.” She is using aggressive rhetorical questioning and compares his commitment to the measure of his love for her. In this way, she makes Macbeth guilty.

Lady Macbeth tries to conceive n image of a mother murdering her innocent child ad contrast it as a reminder of his duties as a husband. She says,” Have plucked my nipple from his boneless gums and dashed the brains out, had I so sworn as you have done to this.” It is clear that lady Macbeth’s affections are conditional and unless Macbeth gives in to her, she will continue to question his role as a protector and husband. Lastly, when Macbeth is worried of failure, she promises him that they would be successful as long as they are confident, bold and strong.

 Lady Macbeth is stronger, cold-blooded and more ambitious than her husband, Macbeth. At one point she wishes that she were a woman so that she could execute the plan herself. Even so her husband implies that she is a masculine soul in a female body, undaunted and with remarkable strength of will.

JEKYLL AND HYDE- WHO IS THE REAL MONSTER?

In The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, Robert Louis Stevenson brings to life one of the most compelling and original monsters ever written.

The obvious monster is Mr Hyde: the snarling, feral mass of murderous impulses. First, Hyde beats up a little girl. Later, he stamps an kindly white-haired old man to death - and enjoys it. Hyde is the creation or alter ego of an eminent doctor. When Jekyll takes the potion, he is transformed, out of himself into Hyde - unrecognisable.

We meet the eminent Dr Jekyll, cowering in darkness, haunted, and feel sorry for him. But he is the real monster. Hyde's body is his body; Hyde's nature is his nature, and is his own creation. Dr Jekyll is a man who craves respectability at any price.

In order to preserve his respectability, and indulge his darkest desires, Dr Jekyll works on a compound that will transform him - separate his good and bad natures, and let it loose. It’s an addiction. Though Jekyll is appalled, he always needs one more hit. He enjoys the transformation, enjoys the power, enjoys the feeling of keeping CLEAN. With his alter-ego, Jekyll enjoys rolling in the dirt.

It's like the question: if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? If we do mean, cruel, disgusting things, does it matter if no-one finds out? Various experiments have proved that in darkened rooms, more people will cheat for a financial gain. Under cover of darkness, when we think that we can't be seen, we lose our inhibitions. More crimes are committed under cover of darkness than in daylight.

Respectability and social pressures of the Victorian era are hard for us to understand today. We can easily understand that it’s not okay to beat small children and kindly old men. But what’s harder is to feel the social pressures that Stevenson was working in. In some ways, this morality tale is too sharply cut: none of us want to beat old men, or small children - hopefully.But we face temptations on a daily basis. 

In real life, the moral universe is rarely as clear-cut as respectable doctors vs murderers. It’s about the subtle slide into the pit and the fact that often, there’s something to enjoy on the way down. If there weren't something in it for us, we wouldn’t go there in the first place.

Earlier drafts of the novel have a different slant: Jekyll’s secret crime is not murder, it’s homosexuality, and the psychological damage is not the consciousness of evil, but the damage of a torn nature. Society condemned homosexuality, and it had to be hidden. Ultimately, Stevenson abandoned this element - as too dangerous, too hot to handle. But it lies, still at the heart of the novel, making it hard to pin down whether Stevenson meant us to condemn social judgement, or condemn the person who thinks they can indulge animalistic urges as long as no one is looking.

courtesy:

http://englishtutorhome2.blogspot.com/search/label/Jekyll%20and%20Hyde

THE ROLE OF FATE IN WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE'S " ROMEO AND JULIET"

Some people may not believe that fate is something that truthfully exists in the world. This portion of the population doubts that there is anything that is actually meant to be or supposed to happen thinking that there is always a way around troubling predicaments, knowing that it isn't necessary to turn out just one certain way. They trust that whatever occurs in their lives comes as a result of the decisions that they make with their own free will. Others, however, believe that whatever happens during the course of their lives is inevitable and every event predestined and laid out before them like a roadmap to life; in other words, fate. William Shakespeare's play, Romeo and Juliet has fate as an exceptionally crucial force, pulling the characters into a more animated state. Because of fate, the play becomes tremendously thrilling and it is exactly what manages the two young lovers to meet each other in the first place. The moment that Romeo and Juliet meet is the exact incident that leads to their death, however unaware these "star-crossed lovers" are to that fact. Thus, fate is undoubtedly the most responsible influence for the couple's heartbreaking tragedy.  

    It is not merely a coincidence that Romeo and Juliet meet in the first place. A serving man comes across Romeo and Benvolio in the first act, unaware that they are Montagues, and informs them about the Capulet party: "My master is the great rich Capulet, and, if you be not / of the house of Montagues, I pray come and crush a / cup of wine" (I ii, 86-88). It is by fate that Romeo and Benvolio run into the Capulet serving man and discover the party. It is not just a simple ACCIDENT that the serving man tells the two cousins about the party at which Romeo is destined, yet unaware, that he will meet his love. Furthermore, before Romeo attends the Capulet party, he says, "Some consequence yet hanging in the stars / shall bitterly begin this fearful date" (I iv, 114-115). Romeo already predicts what the fates have in store as he says something bad might transpire if he dares to show up at the party, where he will meet Juliet. It is fate that they meet because Romeo says it himself. The final deaths of them both (Romeo and Juliet) is the "consequence" that he is talking about and the bitterness that starts the pathway to their ultimate tragedy is their first encounter, since they are supposed to be opposing enemies. For these reasons, Romeo and Juliet's first meeting is compulsory and sure to happen, fate being the most powerful force at work, determining their future. 

     Though they are the offspring of two families who have held a grudge over each other since antiquity, Romeo and Juliet are doomed to be in love. When Romeo discovers who Juliet is, he says to himself, "O dear account! My life is my foe's DEBT" (I v, 132). Despite the fact that they were born into feuding families, Romeo can't help but love Juliet because he already loves her before he discovers her true identity as a Capulet. Thereupon, it is fated that he loves Juliet even if it is forbidden. Moreover, when Juliet finds out from the nurse that Romeo is a Montague, she says, "My love sprung from my only hate! / Too early seen unknown, and known too late! / Prodigious birth of love it is to me / That I must love a loathed enemy" (I v, 152-155). Since Juliet could not see beforehand that Romeo is an enemy, by fate, she begins to love him unconditionally. However, when she finds that her true love is also her true nemesis, it is too late for her to hate Romeo. Unfortunately, she has already been sucked in my love's overpowering gravity-like pull, which cripples her chances of defeating her true destiny of being in love with Romeo. 

  It is also a result of fate that flaws agonize Friar Lawrence's plan which eventually leads to Romeo and Juliet's utmost and dire demise. For example, instead of knowing about what the friar has in mind, Romeo is informed by Balthasar about Juliet's "death": "Her body sleeps in Capel's monument, / And her immortal part with angels lives" (V I, 19-20). Though it seems like an honest ACCIDENT that Balthasar is the one to tell Romeo about the turn of events, it is more likely that fate holds a much greater influence. By fate, Balthasar comes to Romeo and tells him what he believes to be true, but the piece of information he offers is a cause of the tragedy. Friar Lawrence's plan is also ruined because Friar John is unable to deliver the message to Romeo: "I could not send it (here it is again) / Nor get a messenger to bring it thee, / So fearful were they of infection" (V iii, 14-16). Because Friar Lawrence's message is crucial to the plan he devises, the fact that it is never sent creates a major rupture that can turn out to be quite deadly. Romeo, not knowing that Juliet isn't officially dead, makes a big mistake, because he is oblivious, that leads himself and Juliet toward their impending doom. The fate put over the friar's plan leaves Romeo a desire to die, which destines Juliet and himself to their conclusive fate: death. 

    Taking into consideration that Romeo and Juliet are predetermined to meet, love and die together, fate is clearly the dominant force for the most part of the play. 

ESSAY: THE VOICE BY THOMAS HARDY

Image URL:http://www.victorianweb.org/painting/misc/hardy.jpg

The poem "The voice" is a touching account of a man's sense of loss and of his difficulty to come to terms with the absence of a loved woman. The narrator, hearing the voice of the woman he loved but who is now absent from his life, addresses her directly and is led to happily and in a very touching way reminisce in the second stanza about his past with her; however, there is then a shift in tone in the third stanza, as he is brought back to earth whilst questioning the probability of really hearing this woman's voice. Finally, in the fourth stanza, we leave him struggling with his sense of loss.

The poem starts with "Woman much missed," thus immediately introducing the notion of a sense of loss. This sense of loss is not an acute pain but rather a soft ache: this impression of softness is emphasized by the use of soft sounds such as "w" and "m" as well as the repetition of "call to me" at the end of the line. The flowing rhythm (the only form of punctuation within the stanza are commas) also suggests that the narrator's thoughts are rather more pleasant than painful. The repetition of "call to me" with its echoing quality also serves to place emphasis on the subject of the narrator's preoccupation: the narrator cannot escape from the woman's voice; it is incessantly present in his mind. In the next three lines, we learn what it is that this voice is saying to the narrator. An opposition is drawn in the state of the poet and the woman's relationship at different times. This opposition is made explicit by the key words "now" (l.2), "when" (l.3 and 4) and "at first" as well as the use of the past and present tenses for instance in "now you are not as you were" (l.2). The woman was "all to me,", then she "changed", and now, she says she has changed again. We do not know the reason why the woman is no more "all to" the narrator until later on in the poem. However what is clear is that the narrator misses the time when "our day was fair." The last word is emphasized by the fact that it does not fit the rhyming pattern that had been set in the first three lines (one expects a word rhyming with "were"). Moreover, as this voice is in the narrator's head, it is highly probable that what it is saying is wishful thinking on his part: he wants things back as they stood "at first."

The 5th line's question "Can it be you that I hear"" confirms the impression that at the back of the narrator's mind, his reason recognizes what the voice is saying as being impossible. This doubt leads to a logical statement "let me see you, then." However, the narrator is not unwilling to listen to the voice of reason: he would rather reminisce, and the ambivalence of the word "then" banishes reason from his mind as he willingly returns to fond memories. The semi-colon followed by the decisive word "yes" (l.7) show that reminiscence has confirmed his desire to see her again. Moreover, the exclamation mark after "Even to the original air-blue gown!" shows the narrator's emotion and how affected he is by his memories.

In the 3rd stanza, the narrator realizes that he has been carried away and returns to being more reasonable. In this stanza, the narrator is suddenly aware of elements around him ( "the breeze", "the wet mead") and of the fact that things cannot change as he had been wishfully thinking beforehand ( this impression is emphasized by the finality in the terms "ever", and "no more again,", and in the terms "far of near"). This finality suggests that his beloved woman is dead and that is why the narrator no longer has such a close relationship with her.

This return to reality is even more strongly marked in the last stanza. Indeed, the rhythm that had up till now been flowing is suddenly halting, as every word practically is stressed (in line 13, "thus I; faltering forward,"). Moreover, the notion of effort is reflected by the word "faltering", by the alliteration in "f"; the narrator probably finds it hard to live on without the woman he loves. There are two ways of interpreting the last line "And the woman calling." Either he is still thinking about his lover, or he is trying to ignore this voice in his head. One can also notice that the woman in no longer directly addressed in this last stanza ("the woman", opposed to "you" in the first two stanzas. This shows that we are not witnessing the narrator's thoughts anymore. Maybe it has become too painful for him to share them with us; maybe his sense of loss is too delicate. Anyhow, we are left with the image of the narrator symbolically struggling against the wind as he is struggling with his overwhelming sense of loss.

In this poem, the poet very effectively and touchingly portrays the pain that comes with the realization that a loved one will never be seen again, that the special relationship that there was has been lost forever. the intensity of the emotion expressed in the poem makes me feel that the narrator is in fact the poet, but the expression of the pain of loss as well as the portrayal of little cherished details in a relationship in the poem are definitely of universal value.

AN INSPECTOR CALLS :How does Priestley show the difference in the older generation and the younger generation?

Priestly aptly conveys the difference in attitude between the older and younger generation, In accordance with Eva Smith’s death. As we can see, Priestly shows the older generation as confident, stylish yet class conscious. On the other hand, the younger generation is aware of their responsibility as being perceptive and not giving in to social segregation. The older generation are represented by the characters Mr Birling in contrast with the younger generation characterised by Sheila, Eric Birling and Gerald Croft.

As seen in Act 1, Mr Birling is extremely selfish. He wants to protect his reputation and safeguard Birling and Co. He does not agree with the younger generation’s viewpoint when they condemn him for firing va Smith. In defiance he says, “Rubbish! If you don’t come down sharply on some of these people, they’d soon be asking for the Earth.”

This clearly shows that he is unable to accept responsibility for his part n Eva Smith’s death. In addition to this, Mr Birling is very proud of his achievement, since he has worked his way up the corporate ladder of success. He is a boastful character who threatens the inspector with his influential connections, so as to make the inspector realise his social standing. This can be observed when he makes a remark to the inspector,“Perhaps I ought to warn you he is an old friend of mine…”

The word ‘warn’ implies a threatening attitude or nature. Mr Birling shows to a less influential person. Further on, we are able to see Mr Birling’s attitude towards Eva Smith. Rather angrily, he comments to Eric,” It’s about time you learn to face a new responsibility.” This implies that Mr Birling expects the younger generation to face responsibility while he prefers to shirk his responsibility.  Through Mr Birling, Priestley is trying to convey to the audience that the older generation is more concerned about their social status in protecting their reputation and is prejudice towards the less fortunate ( Eva Smith). The audience is able to see Mr Birling in negative light as Mr Birling, whose business is actually dependant on the labour class chooses to ignore them.

While Mr Birling and Inspector Goole are continuing their conversation, Eric come in. It is evident that there is tension in Eric’s relationship with his father. Eric is embarrassed and feeling awkward when his father lectures him and Gerald saying, “ A man has to mind his own business and look after himself.” When the Inspector pinpoints that Mr Birling should accept responsibility for Eva Smith’s death, the latter denies the same prompting Eric to sarcastically comment, “ And you were saying that a man has to look after himself.” This shows that Eric is upset with his parents when they refuse to accept responsibility. It is further noticed that Eric Being of the younger generation is open to new ideas and sympathetic towards the working class. He supports Eva Smith as being a good worker because she was aggressive towards her rights as a labourer. Eric says, “ She’d a bit more spirited than the other…” This shows that he supports the worker’s cause and does not believe in class distinction. Priestley tries to show te younger generation with  positive impression as they would have been more sympathetic towards the workers and more humane in their thinking as opposed to the older generation than can only think of profits.

Sheila makes an entry after Eric has made his point clear. Sheila may have considered the condition at the workers. However, she shows compassion instinctively as she is horrified over her father’s treatment of Eva Smith. “But these girl’s aren’t cheap labour – they’re people.” This depicts that Sheila is beginning to change as she sees her father in unfavourable light. Later, Sheila is ashamed by her own part in Eva’s story. She feels full of guilt for her actions and blames herself for being responsible. “…..it was my own fault…I’m telling the truth. I accept you’ve done things you’re ashamed at too” This shows Sheila is able to examine her conscience and be ashamed of her role in Eva’s death. She is wiser because she has admitted her responsibility and accepted her own wrongdoings. Through this, Priestley is able to convey the fact that although the younger generation tend to behave irresponsible towards the lower class women like Eva . They can experience a self -realisation that they are guilty.  As we can see Sheila is full of remorse.

  Gerald knew Daisy Renton when the Inspector mentioned Eva Smith’s name. He is an aristocrat, similar to Mr Birling, who wants to protect his own interest. He is not willing to take responsibility of his hand in the girl’s death because he wants to pretend he never new her. “There is nothing to be concerned,” I’ve never known Eva Smith!” This shows that he feels that if he was to get involved, he will lose his status quo and although he may be sympathetic, he looks at Eva Smith at being a vulnerable woman who could amuse and entertain him. Gerald’s denial plays a crucial part in showcasing class distinction. “I don’t come in this suicide business.” Through this we can see Gerald’s influenced by his aristocratic roots and never examined his conscience by admitting his fault. To him Eva was a mistress who was pretty and could be discarded at will. Priestley is trying to show that the upper classes abused the lower classes without having any moral responsibility. People like Gerald viewed Eva as a mistress because poor women during that time had no choice but to turn to prostitution when they faced a loss of a job.

The inspector acts as a moral mouthpiece to make the audience aware that it is our personal responsibility for our own action. We need to be responsible for the society we live in. Prejudice and arrogance that exists in the older generation prevents them from being socially conscious and taking responsibility for their actions as they are influenced by their status and personal interests. The younger generation are more optimistic as they are open to new ideas and thoughts; sympathise towards the labour force; are honest to admit their faults and lastly are remorseful of their wrongdoings.