I'm making a small but significant change in how I approach a couple of key moments in Macbeth.
I won't be using the words "regret", "remorse" or "guilt" to describe the emotions of Macbeth or Lady Macbeth.
Let me explain...
1/
What Macbeth experiences in 2:2, staggering out of Duncan's chamber, isn't guilt. It's horror. It's digust at his own actions, and a quickening sense of deep psychological damage done to himself.
It isn't guilt or remorse for his actions.
2/
Someone who says "I am afraid to think what I have done" is not feeling remorseful. They are feeling repulsion and fear.
Macbeth's desperation to clear his hands of blood isn't a sign of feeling *guilty* as such. It's wanting himself to be clean, not to see the deed undone.
3/
It's sometimes instructive to think about what characters DON'T say -- and Macbeth never says he regrets killing Duncan. He has the rest of the play to mention it and he never does. He isn't afflicted with guilt, but with an ever-growing madness and bloodlust.
4/
So in Act 5 Sc 1 when Lady Macbeth is seen sleepwalking and washing her hands...again, I wouldn't call this remorse or guilt. She's trapped in the same moment of horror that she was able to survive in Act 2 Sc 2 -- replaying that night in her head, also wanting to be clean.
5/
There's a glimmer of remorse when she asks "The Thane of Fife had a wife; where is she now?"
The murder of Macduff's family is properly centred here as Macbeth's greatest evil.
But again, "make my hands clean" isn't the same as "I wish I hadn't done that."
6/
I'm happy to be challenged on this, but I increasingly think that reading Lady Macbeth as guilty or remorseful is a bit of a wrong turn.
7/7
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
English EduTwitter often bemoans the use of PEE, PEAL, PETAL etc in GCSE responses, for some valid reasons. In my opinion these discussions often miss the biggest issue with paragraph formulae:
What is a POINT, anyway?
1/
Let’s say I’m answering a gcse question on Inspector Calls:
“How does Priestley present the character of Eric in the play?”
Consider the options I have for the start of my opening paragraph:
2/
a) Priestley introduces the character of Eric as “half-shy, half-assertive”.
b) Priestley introduces the character of Eric as a contrast to Mr Birling and Gerald.
c) Priestley introduces Eric through his reliance on alcohol.
Some ideas about OZYMANDIAS, by Percy Bysshe Shelley, 1818.
1) I met a Traveller from an antique land
Shelley began writing Ozymandias after the British Museum acquired a statue of that figure (Ramesses II). It’s important that this poem describes a statue *in situ*...
1/
Not in a museum. The framing device allows for a reading of the statue in its original location.
An important theme of the poem is how meaning is made and changes: the meaning of the statue is different if you see it in the desert, and different to what Ozy himself intended.
2/
We don’t really use the word “antique” as an adjective in everyday speech now. It means old, but it means more than old I think. Shakespeare uses the word specifically to reference the classical world, the ancient past, and I think it has that meaning here too.
3/
I watched a lecture on A Christmas Carol from the academic John Mullan. I'll pull out some highlights.
I am paraphrasing some of this, so do check out the original lecture if you're interested:
1/
Mullan notes that the Victorian ghost story, which we now think of as a quintessential 19th c literary form, had not really got start when ACC was published in 1843. ACC precedes that craze (and Dickens himself would not be shy of capitalising on it once it got started).
2/
Christmas was a commercially important time for booksellers and authors then as now, and Dickens in his correspondance often refers to the importance of having work finished "in time for Christmas".
3/
How seriously do you take Dickens' social critique in Christmas Carol?
- I think you can argue his portrayal of the poor is sentimentalised. The Cratchits and the other folk enjoying Christmas in their own little ways are hardly a searching portrayal of Vict. social ills.
1/
Of the actual underclass -- the unskilled, unemployed, unhoused -- we see hardly anything, although perhaps we are not at "peak slum" in the 1840s.
2/
Dickens' message in the text seems to be: the answer to society's problems is for rich people to be nicer.
Perhaps this was more revolutionary in the 1840s than it seems now? ACC isn't interested in "inequality" in any structural sense.
3/
A lot of prejudicial or exlusionary behaviour is invisible if you're not the one consciously committing it.
I do not make lewd comments to women on the bus, or catcall schoolgirls from my car, but I believe it happens (or every woman I know is lying).
1/
If you're shortlisted for a job, you don't need to think about the people who weren't, or why.
When you're let into a club you don't see what happens to the person behind you in the queue.
You sit on the Tube, you don't have to wonder who couldn't get to the platform.
2/
You'll never know who didn't get a place at your university, or who was turned down for an acting job in this play, or how the other person in the waiting room got treated by your doctor.
3/