I'm going through Macbeth for my lessons and a dycotomy I posed was that Macbeth could have chosen to let nature take its course like Banquo did, or play God by intervening in the natural progression of events, which he did, like Oedipus Rex.
This provoked some thoughts in my mind. The reactions we have towards our encounters in life can be due to our own choices or due to the "inevitable consequences" of those encounters. For example, when our love or friendship is not reciprocated, we can choose either to hang on stubbornly to those feelings or to let them go and move on. Another example can be the converse situation. If we're hurt, let down or betrayed, we can either forgive or bear a grudge.
Getting back to Macbeth, he chose to murder Duncan so that he could make the prediction happen faster. He let desire and greed for the throne rule his act. It was not the prediction that caused him to contemplate the decision. In the first place, the prediction didn't state how long it would take for it to be fulfilled. It's like saying that instead of letting the prediction take its 10 years to be fulfilled, Macbeth wanted it to be fulfilled in 1 year and so committed treason. The stipulated time duration is of course from a hypothetical point of view. Macbeth was thus impatient.
So, in reality, is our unwillingness to forgive and to let go our own choice or an "inevitable consequence"? If the latter is our answer, is that more of an excuse?
Don't get me wrong. I'm aware of the difficulty of doing this. I'm just making a point and stimulating some thinking here.
No comments:
Post a Comment