A Tale Of Two Theories - Free Essays -

A Tale Of Two Theories

A Tale of Two Theories Macbeth(c.1607), written by William Shakespeare, is the tragic tale of Macbeth, a virtuous man, corrupted by power and greed. This tragedy could in fact be called A Tale of Two Theories. One theory suggests that the tragic hero, Macbeth, is led down an inescapable road of doom by an outside force, namely fate in the form of the three witches. The second suggests that there is no supernatural force working against Macbeth, which therefore makes him responsible for his own actions and inevitable downfall. It must be remembered that Macbeths a literary work of art, and as a piece of art is open to many different interpretations, none of them right and none of them wrong. But the text of the play seems to imply that Macbeth is indeed responsible for his own actions which are provoked by an unwillingness to listen to his own conscience, the witches, and his ambition. First, Macbeth ignores the voice of his own psyche. He knows what he is doing is wrong even before he murders Duncan, but he allows Lady Macbeth and greed to cloud his judgment.

In referring to the idea of the murder of Duncan, Macbeth first states, We will proceed no further in this business(I.vii.32). Yet, after speaking with Lady Macbeth he recants and proclaims, I am settled, and bend up/Each corporal agent to this terrible feat(I.vii.79-80). There is nothing supernatural to be found in a man being swayed by the woman he loves, as a matter of fact this action could be perceived as quite the opposite. Second, the witches have to be dispelled as a source of Macbeth's misfortune before the latter theory can be considered. It is admittedly strange that the weird sisters first address Macbeth with, All hail, Macbeth! hail to thee Thane of Cawdor!(I.iii.49), a title which not even Macbeth is aware he has been awarded. Even stranger is the third witch calling to Macbeth, All hail, Macbeth, that shalt be king hereafter!(I.iii.50).

However as stated by Bradley, No connection of these announcements with any actions of his was even hinted by [the withches](232). Some are still not convinced though of the witches less than supernatural role; nevertheless, Macbeth appears throughout the play to be completely aware 3 of his actions, as opposed to being controlled by some mystic force. The effect of the witches on the action of the play is best summarized by these words: ...while the influences of the Witches' prophecies on Macbeth is very great, it is quite clearly shown to be an influence and nothing more.(Bradley 232) Most important to the theory that Macbeth is responsible for his own actions would be a point that the infamous witches and Macbeth agree upon. Such an element exists in the form of Macbeth's ambition. In the soliloquy Macbeth gives before he murders Duncan, he states, ...I have no spur to prick the sides of intent, but only/Vaulting ambition,...(I.vii.25-27). Are these the words of a man who is merely being led down a self destructive path of doom, with no will of his own? Or are they the words of a man who realizes not only the graveness of his actions, but, also the reasons behind them? The answer is clear, Macbeth is a totally cognizant principal and not a mindless puppet. Later the head witch, Hectare, declares, Hath been but for a wayward son,/Spiteful and wrathful, who, as others do,/Loves for his own ends, not for you. (III.v.11-13), which again highlights Macbeth's ambitious nature. The most significant part of the play is the part that is missing, and that is a connection between Macbeth's ambition and some spell cast by the weird sisters which might be said to magically cause an increase in his desires. While purposely played in a mysterious setting, the location is not meant to cloud the true theme of the play with the supernatural. Macbeth simply succumbs to natural urges which take him to a fate of his own making. Everyone has character flaws that he must live with; Macbeth simply allowed those flaws to destroy him. 3

Refrences:

Bradley, A.C. The Witch Scenes in Macbeth. England in Literature. Ed. John Pfordesher,

Gladys V. Veidemanis, and Helen McDonnell. Illinois: Scott, Foresman, 1989. 232-233

Shakespeare, William. Macbeth. England in Literature. Ed. John Pfordesher, Gladys V.

Veidemanis, and Helen McDonnell. Illinois: Scott, Foresman, 1989. 191-262

Read More......

A Show About Nothing - Free Essay -

A Show About Nothing

A Show About Nothing In the artcle, “Is Seinfeld the Best Comedy Ever?”, author Jay McInerney agrees with Seinfeld the best comedy on television. Seinfeld is a real life show. The behaviors of Jerry, Kramer, George and Elaine, the failed communication, and the everyday embassassment represent “nothingness” but a peculiar everyday life.

These “nothingnesses” happen to all of us, but when it is put on TV, people will laugh at these. Besides, the author appreciates the fact that Seinfeld is a New York story but it is filmed in Los Angeles. “The lumpy texture of life in the city, the random looniness of the street, the idioms and speech inflections of Manhattan, and the claustrophobia of New York apartment living” in the show fascinates the New Yorker as it is so real and funny. Seinfeld takes those little nothings and combines them to create something realistic.

Nothingness and reality give the author the reasons to believe that it is the best comedy ever. When people consider Seinfeld as a “show about nothing”. It could be humorous that “nothingness” can provide such an interesting topic for the comedies of life. In life people care about details and worry about trouble, the little nothings made are soon forgotten. Thus, these “nothingnesses” are actually fragments of out real life. Seinfeld gathers the nothingness into a show, and it spreads out the idea that everything in the show that actually happens all around us.

For example, losing the car in a parking garage, working for an eccentric boss and coping with the trials and tribulations of dating, it is common for a lot of people. And these realities come into the nothingness of Seinfeld. In Seinfeld, the fabulous four characters George, Kramer, Elaine and Jerry share the nothingnesses which life have granted them. George cannot attract thr girl because of his limitiations as a short, bald, fat man. Kramer struggles with the fact that he has not achieved anything in his life yet.. Elaine worries her hold on to a good boyfriend and a good job for long. And Jerry, living with his nothing friends, as well as his own LEX Luthurs which seem to always abstract his plans to find his own Lois Lane and live the life of Superman.

The four were cramped in small apartments of New York and live a life of nothingness. Besides, even the settings in Seinfeld for great adventures appear muchlike nothing. Seinfeld always takes place in Jerry’s apartment. Jerry fears germs greatly so he keeps a neat apartment. From the apartment the four plan trips to the movies or coffee shops. The coffee shop is a place where Elaine, George, and Jerry converse.

The movie house is a place where Jerry, George, and Elaine often go to watch movies together or bring dates. Jerry gets caught making out during Shindlers List. Elaine gets caught not like the English Patient. They always get into trouble at the movie theater. The settings of Seinfeld are simple in design, telling people that they are living in a common way. In conclusion, I agree with the description that Seinfeld is a “show about nothing”. However, the nothingness in the show actually represent reality.

That is, Seinfels is a “show about reality”. George, Kramer, Elaine, and Jerry are not stereotyped, they have unique characters and they just represent the way that they live. The settings are simple and make people more easily to get connected with them. And the plot, it is about fragments of lives. It is a show about reality that it may happen around us. Seinfeld creates an identity that watching “nothing” can present laughter and humor to everyone. Besides, the gift of “nothingness” has transformed the lives of millions around the world.

"A Show About Nothing"

Read More......

A Man For All Seaons

A Man For All Seasons (A man Cannot Serve Two Masters) Neither Thomas More or the Common Man are able to serve two masters In the play A Man for All Seasons by Roger Bolt, The Spanish Ambassador Chapuys says to Steward, a role played by the common man, No man can serve two masters…(Bolt, 24). Within the play this statement is proven true for all the characters, especially for The Common Man and Sir Thomas More.

The Common Man, shows himself time and again that he truly serves one master and that master is himself; whereas with More attempts to serve two masters. More attempt to serve King Henry of England, and God. By the end of the play it is shown that More cannot serve two masters despite all his efforts. It is apparent within the play that the Common Man is serving himself as his only master and no one else. In the play it may seem that he is not a self-serving character due to the fact that he obeys what people tell him to do, for instance in his conversations with Cromwell, and Chapuys, they ask him for knowledge about his master, Sir Thomas More.

Firstly Cromwell asks him information concerning More's attitude towards the King's divorce of his wife the Queen. The Common Man replies, Sir, Sir Thomas doesn't talk about it…He doesn't talk about it to his wife, sir…Sir, he goes white when it's mentioned! Cromwell (hands coin): All Right.(Bolt, 23.). Later with his conversation with Chapuys he is asked about More's spirituality, Sir Thomas rises at six, sir, and prays for an hour and a half…During lent, sir he lived entirely on bread and water…He goes to twice a week, sir. Parish Priest. Dominican…(Bolt, 24). Chapuys then replies to the Common Man, Good, simple man. Here. (Gives coin. Going)…(Bolt, 24). As you can see he does what he wants for himself and no other especially divulging information for money. The Common Man also only holds loyalty unto himself and no other. At the first sign his needs will no longer be met to his satisfaction he leaves. For when More loses his job and no longer has an income, the Common Man collects his belongings and leaves, Now, damn me isn't that them all over…I nearly fell for it…`Matthew, will you kindly take a cut in your wages?' `No, Sir Thomas I will not.'(Bolt, 57).

The Common Man is a very sly person, and holds nothing back when it comes to him and a job. This is evident as he acquires a position with Richard Rich, another very self- serving person by easily manipulating him. Richard Rich had no inclination to hire the Common Man; he was manipulated so well that the Common Man gets a job, Oh. Oh, I must contradict you there, sir; that's your imagination. In those days, sir, you still had your way to make. And a gentleman in that position often imagines these things. Then when he's risen to his proper level, sir, he stops thinking about it…Well - I don't think you find people `disrespectful' nowadays, do you sir?(Bolt, 61-62). Now, Sir Thomas More, through out the play tries to balance his life between God and King. More as he obeys God and King prays for his King, Dear Lord give us rest tonight, or if we must be wakeful, cheerful. Careful only for our soul's salvation. For Christ sake. Amen. And bless our lord the King.(Bolt, 8).

To continue his service for both God and King, More is willing to sacrifice everything if it will allow him to serve both; There is my right arm. (A practical position.) Take your dagger and saw it from my shoulder, and I will laugh and be thankful, if by that means I can come with Your Grace with a clear conscience.(Bolt, 31). For in the play More is forced with a choice, to either continue in his service to King Henry and go against the Catholic Church or quite his job and continue in his service to the King, If the Bishops in Convocation submitted this morning, I'll take it off…It's no degradation.(Bolt, 48). In the play the Act of Supremacy is passed. The purpose of this act is to affirm that the King is the Supreme Head of the Church in England. If More were not to swear to this act he would be committing high treason against the King. Since More believes that he can serve two masters, he roots through the act looking for a loophole. A loophole that will allow him to continue serving his God and King. Supreme Head of the Church in England --- `so far as the law of God allow it remains a matter of opinion since the act doesn't state it.(Bolt, 48) Only at the very end of his life, as he sits in a courtroom does he finally realize that he cannot serve God and King. It is here that he realizes that he must choose, and he chooses God. After Richard Rich perjures himself to convict More in court, Cromwell offers More his last chance to choose between God and King, and More does choose God above all, To what purpose? I am a dead man. (To Cromwell.) You have your desire of me. What you have hunted me for is not my actions, but the thoughts of my heart. It is a long road you have opened. For first men will disclaim there hearts and presently they will have no hearts. God help the people whose Statesmen walk your road.(Bolt, 95). It is evident that in the play A Man For All Seasons by Robert Bolt the characters in focus, The Common Man serve's but one master himself. And Sir Thomas More who attempt to serve two masters is unable and in the end when he chooses to serve his King keep his life and lose his soul, or serve his God keep his soul and lose his life. He chooses God. This play clearly shows that, no man can serve two masters.

Read More......