Love and Acceptance Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Love and Acceptance - Essay Example Examining the importance of this in Morrison through â€Å"The Bluest Eye,† â€Å"Songs of Solomon,† â€Å"Beloved† and â€Å"A Mercy,† are able to define and change the understanding of the novels and how this relates to the several angles that are associated with love and acceptance, specifically with the internal perceptions, relations to the external environment and others and the responses which are given by individual characters. The Overlapping Theme of Love in Morrison The concept of love is one which is found in most of Morrison’s novels and is one of the overlapping themes that continue to be explored. The theme which Morrison follows is one which combines the actions one takes for love as well as the perceptions of love which are attributed to different characters. The belief that is created when looking at the various novels is that the expression and perception of love is dependent on the character, background and the circumstances whic h are surrounding a given situation. The concept which Morrison carries with her personal philosophy is to develop an understanding of how each of the characters would perceive love as a central theme in their lives. When asked about the notion of love in the characters, Morrison states â€Å"With a character, I do what an actress does: I get inside, I try to see what it looks like and how they feel and let them do what I think they’d do. At the moment I’m writing, I love all of that, I love them†¦You just write what you think is your truth. Everybody isn’t everybody† (Morrison, Guthrie, 71-72). ... The changing ideology of love and acceptance then comes from Morrison’s examination of the character acceptance and flaws within each of the novels. The approach which Morrison takes is one which becomes important because the concept of love and acceptance is no longer limited and is only expressed by each of the characters. There is the ability for Morrison to change this ideology into the rejection of love, projection of dysfunctions or with the loss of romantic love. This is done with the sense of investigation and how other environmental issues and concepts relate to love and acceptance. The background of Morrison is one which incorporates an investigation of concepts such as culture, definitions of love in society and other associations with her investigation of love, specifically to show how these elements change the perspective of being in love. It is noted that this comes from Morrison’s background as an African – American living in the south and seeing t he divisions and questions about identity that were a part of the lifestyle. The works which she created then questioned the ideas of culture and identity and how this led to different perceptions of love or the absence of it, dependent on the perceptions of the character. â€Å"All the books are questions for me. I write them because I don’t know something in there I really did not understand: what is the problem between a pair of lovers who really love one another but are culturally different?... How can you manage to love another person under these circumstances if your culture, your class, your education are that different† (Morrison, Guthrie, 270). The main ideology which Morrison

John Locke and natural right to property Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words - 1

John Locke and natural right to property - Essay Example As a means of explicating and elaborating on Locke’s particular view of private property and the means by which it is acquired as well as the rights that it necessarily portends, this brief analysis will review Locke’s arguments and attempt to juxtapose and coalesce them within the framework of how private property within the modern era is understood. Furthermore, the qualifications to what constitutes private property and how it can and should be utilized will also be discussed. Lastly, a level of inference will be drawn based upon the means by which Locke has defined private property and the means by which such a definition is still useful within the current modern context of evolved societies. Firstly and most importantly, it should be stated that according to John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government, he believed private property to be a natural right. This natural right is related to the reader due to the fact that Locke believes that the private ownership of property and the wealth generation that it can bring is one of the only means by which an individual can sustain himself/herself in a relative form of physical comfort. Whereas many people throughout the decades have criticized such an interpretation as going against the natural order of things, the fact of the matter is without private property, the ability of the individual to profit from the otherwise communal land is all but negligible. Locke does place a limit on the so called â€Å"Naturalness† of private property. Ultimately, his qualification of what can be determined as the natural right is contingent upon the lack of greed that private property ownership must exhibit. In other words, for Locke, private property is a natural right and moral good as long as it is not engaged upon with greed. Locke goes on to differentiate what is specifically meant by the somewhat nebulous

The Book of Job Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

The Book of Job - Essay Example This dramatic form also allows the wisdom it seeks to impart to take work dialectically on the reader. I will argue that the wisdom imparted by the Book of Job does not, as it is often argued, support the notion of a moral universe; one that is just but whose justice man can never hope to know. That God appears to Job in the conclusion seems to point against the idea that the author of Job wishes us to understand God as unknowable. Equally, I do not believe that the Book supports a notion of a moral or just God. Quite the opposite, in fact, as it seems to reject the premise that God can be seen in the realm of justice at all. As such, the Lord does not provide an answer to Job's complaint (certainly not in the judicial senses of these words) but merely a rebuff to the notion that he might be called to answer. Equally, Job's repentance is not one based on a greater understanding of the moral framework of his punishment, but merely a bowing to the ultimate power of the Lord's might. Before we analyze the Lord's speeches in the latter part of the book, we must first characterize precisely what Job is complaining of. Job, by his own account, was a pillar of the community he "went to the gate of the city / and took my seat in the public square, / the young men saw me and stepped aside / and the old men rose to their feet" (29:7-8). Job knew the things that were expected of him by virtue and by his God, and he has performed them with diligence and care (see his description in Chapter 31). We are even told that it was considered by the Lord himself that there "is no-one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil." Indeed, it is precisely Job's inherent goodness that leads him to be singled out for the painful wrath that Satan1, with the Lord's express approval, rains down upon his head. As such, Job's complaint, though it is modulated throughout the thirty or so chapters that take up the central part of the Book, is simply thi s: I am innocent, so why has the Lord treated me so badly These are precisely the terms on which the debate between Job and his three friends, Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite, take place. Job says is that he is innocent of crimes, therefore he should not be punished. He goes further and seems to suggest that there must be some mistake on the Lord's part, that if he were able to bring his case before the Lord, "he would not press charges against me" (23:6). Job even reaches the extreme (much to his friends amazement and fear) of suggesting that the Lord has absented the realms of justice entirely, "surely God lives, who has denied me justice" (27:2). Though his three friends argue against Job, they do so from the same standpoint, i.e. the Lord's punishment would only be just if he punished the wicked. However, they work from the opposite direction; assuming that the Lord must be just, and therefore, if he is punishing Job, Job must be worthy of punishment. They take the inverse view of the relationship of just punishment to sinful behavior - if a man is as afflicted as Job then "Surely such is the dwelling of an evil man; / such is the place of one who knows not God." There is some evidence in the text that, at the time of writing, this conception of divine justice was the prevalent one. Job even says to his friends admonishments, "Who does not know all these things" I will argue that the Lord's answer to Job overturns such a conception. To

Defining the Word Hot Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words - 6

Defining the Word Hot - Essay Example Perhaps the primary reference of the word hot is a high temperature. During the summer, weather temperatures could go as high as a hundred degrees Fahrenheit or even higher. In Dubai, it has recorded 122 degrees Fahrenheit high. This is an extremely high temperature for humans and animals so that they need to stay indoors more often and have relied on air-conditioners to lower the temperature. When people need to go out, they should have something to block them from the sun such as an umbrella and they should also carry water to quench their thirst brought about by the high temperature. Obviously, the heat of the sun is a big factor affecting this hot temperature during summer. With no clouds to block the sun, the earth’s direct exposure to it elevates the temperature and therefore makes people perspire as a result of the hotness of the atmosphere. Similarly, hot is often associated with fire which is used to cook food or to make the house warm during winter.  Secondly, the word hot can also refer to a person’s hot-headedness. This association is most probably based on the fact that an angry person has an elevated blood pressure that causes his face to become red especially with white men. When a person is angry, his heart beats faster and pumps blood more rapidly which explains the increased blood pressure. Consequently, the temperature of the man also rises like a person suffering from the fever so that, in relation to the discussion above, an angry person is called hot. The process allows more blood on the head and changes the color of one’s face. Therefore, this could also be associated with the blood. Blood and the heart are identified with the color red. Moreover, a fire which emits some reddish glow or the color of ember or glowing coal is red. Blood, heart, and anger are all interconnected and this is the reason why an angry person is also referred to as hot-tempered. The term is the opposite of the slang word â€Å"cool†.

The Book of Job Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

The Book of Job - Essay Example This dramatic form also allows the wisdom it seeks to impart to take work dialectically on the reader. I will argue that the wisdom imparted by the Book of Job does not, as it is often argued, support the notion of a moral universe; one that is just but whose justice man can never hope to know. That God appears to Job in the conclusion seems to point against the idea that the author of Job wishes us to understand God as unknowable. Equally, I do not believe that the Book supports a notion of a moral or just God. Quite the opposite, in fact, as it seems to reject the premise that God can be seen in the realm of justice at all. As such, the Lord does not provide an answer to Job's complaint (certainly not in the judicial senses of these words) but merely a rebuff to the notion that he might be called to answer. Equally, Job's repentance is not one based on a greater understanding of the moral framework of his punishment, but merely a bowing to the ultimate power of the Lord's might. Before we analyze the Lord's speeches in the latter part of the book, we must first characterize precisely what Job is complaining of. Job, by his own account, was a pillar of the community he "went to the gate of the city / and took my seat in the public square, / the young men saw me and stepped aside / and the old men rose to their feet" (29:7-8). Job knew the things that were expected of him by virtue and by his God, and he has performed them with diligence and care (see his description in Chapter 31). We are even told that it was considered by the Lord himself that there "is no-one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil." Indeed, it is precisely Job's inherent goodness that leads him to be singled out for the painful wrath that Satan1, with the Lord's express approval, rains down upon his head. As such, Job's complaint, though it is modulated throughout the thirty or so chapters that take up the central part of the Book, is simply thi s: I am innocent, so why has the Lord treated me so badly These are precisely the terms on which the debate between Job and his three friends, Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite, take place. Job says is that he is innocent of crimes, therefore he should not be punished. He goes further and seems to suggest that there must be some mistake on the Lord's part, that if he were able to bring his case before the Lord, "he would not press charges against me" (23:6). Job even reaches the extreme (much to his friends amazement and fear) of suggesting that the Lord has absented the realms of justice entirely, "surely God lives, who has denied me justice" (27:2). Though his three friends argue against Job, they do so from the same standpoint, i.e. the Lord's punishment would only be just if he punished the wicked. However, they work from the opposite direction; assuming that the Lord must be just, and therefore, if he is punishing Job, Job must be worthy of punishment. They take the inverse view of the relationship of just punishment to sinful behavior - if a man is as afflicted as Job then "Surely such is the dwelling of an evil man; / such is the place of one who knows not God." There is some evidence in the text that, at the time of writing, this conception of divine justice was the prevalent one. Job even says to his friends admonishments, "Who does not know all these things" I will argue that the Lord's answer to Job overturns such a conception. To

Internet Censorship Essay Example for Free

Internet Censorship Essay Introduction Censorship had always been a subject of debate among those who want media to be censored and those who feel that censorship is a violation of the freedom of speech. The internet has not escaped the issue of censorship. The internet is an information highway and no other form of media is as pervasive and far reaching. Those who favor censoring the internet feels that there should be some form of protection for minors and all people from viewing offensive materials on the internet while those who are against it believes that people should be given the right to choose what to view or not as stated in the first amendment. This paper discusses the arguments for the need to censor the internet and why it should not be censored. Background With the observed prevalence of indecent language and obscene pictures in the internet, groups and organizations have called on for the censorship of the internet. The government’s response to this call was the Communications Decency Act of 1996 which was passed into law by the United States Congress; the act would regulate the forms of speech in the internet (Wallace Mangan, 1996). The law was seen by pro-censorship groups as a way of minimizing immoral content in the internet which might have contributed to the moral degeneration of our society (Qazi, 1996). A year after, the Supreme Court ruled that the CDA was unconstitutional and in turn protected the first amendment (EPIC, 2002). The victory of the free speech proponents over the CDA was short lived, in 1998; the Child Online Protection Act was signed into law by President Clinton which in essence took after the CDA. The COPA mandated criminal penalties for commercially distributing materials harmful to minors including indecent speech (EPIC, 2004). The enactment of COPA again resulted to heated debates and protests over the unconstitutionality of the law, and the free speech protesters were not disappointed. In 2004, after a series of Supreme Court ruling against the COPA, it maintained the injunction on the enforcement of the law. Communications Decency Act of 1996 The President signed the Communications Decency Act into law in January 1996; the act criminalizes indecent speech on the internet. The act identifies that speech depicting sexual organs and acts, excretory organs and acts in a patently offensive fashion under contemporary community standards as indecent speech (Wallace Mangan, 1996). The dubious and vague definition of indecency and the standards by which a word (pure text) is judged to be obscene have made the act questionable. In fact, the CDA was met with violent reactions because it proved to be too restrictive and did not account for situations wherein sexually explicit words have to be used but has scientific, literary, artistic or political values. The act also stated that indecency will be judged based on it being patently offensive, which in practice allows a jury to judge the material as indecent based on how they feel about it, regardless of its scientific, literary or artistic value. Moreover, it also permitted the community to determine the standards by which indecency can be measured. This is unrealistic, for every community or state has its own cultural standards and asking people to use words or materials that are acceptable to each community means restricting speech to the most conservative standards. On the other hand, the Morality in Media, the National Law Center for Children and Families, the National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families and the Family Research Council, who are pro-CDA argue that the CDA does not infringe upon the first amendment. The act accordingly updates and amends Federal obscenity statutes and dial-a-porn laws and that it requires adults who use patently offensive sexual expression to place blinders on their pornography. Further, they point out that what is indecent is well known to the general public and the mass media and that the court should re-interpret the law to be applied only to prurient pornography (McCullagh, 1996). The Supreme Court easily ruled that the CDA was unconstitutional due to the fact that the act tries to restrict content and this is in direct violation of the first amendment. Child Online Protection Act of 1998 The Child Online Protection Act is another effort to censor the content of the internet. It is different from the CDA in that it specifies that children should be protected from harmful language and materials made available in the internet. Thus violators will be subjected to steep fines and prison terms. As with the case with the CDA the COPA also is judged to be too restrictive. It mandates that all material or written text in the internet be acceptable to children, thus it would mean that the content of the internet is limited to children only. In this respect the act states that identifying data should be provided by adults like credit cards to determine their age, but is also discriminatory to those adults who do not have credit cards. Thus the act again is a threat to the freedom of speech that is a fundamental and basic right to each human being. The Supreme Court also finds the act unconstitutional and even after a series of appeals and injunctions; it has maintained that the act cannot be enforced into law. Meanwhile, those who endorse the COPA articulate that the act is dissimilar from the CDA because it applies to commercial pornographic sites. In an attempt to refute the arguments of those against the COPA, the pro groups reiterate that it is economically and technically feasible for the identified sites to check for the age of the surfers and that defining what is harmful to minors is not vague and complicated and can easily be implemented by the states (Macavinta, 1999). They feel that the COPA is needed at this time and age because of the necessity of protecting our children from being corrupted by harmful materials in the internet that may be a cause for abuse and exploitation (Macavinta, 1998). Conclusions Efforts to censor the internet have failed because as an interactive medium it is a vehicle for the expression of man’s freedom of speech. Any attempt by the government to restrict it is a violation of the fundamental human rights of each individual in this democratic country. But the justification for the need of a law to protect children from pornography and violent materials in any form is undeniably valid and should be also be respected. The Supreme Court has also supported the free speech groups in their fight against censorship and is undeniably a champion of the first amendment, but it does not mean that the SC do not give due importance to children’s welfare and safety but striking a balance between the freedom of speech and censorship is a difficult battle to win. Bibliography Communications Decency Act (February 2, 2002). Electronic Privacy Information Center, Retrieved April 20, 2006 from http://www. epic. org/free_speech/cda/ Internet Censorship (February 1, 2002). Electronic Privacy Information Center, RetrievedApril 20, 2006 from http://www. epic. org/free_speech/censorship/ Macavinta, C. (1998). Suit filed against CDA II, CNET News. com, Retrieved April 21, 2006 from http://news. com. com/Suit+filed+against+CDA+II/2100-1023_3-217005. html? tag=st. rn Macavinta, C. (1999). DOJ to wrap up pro-COPA testimony, CNET News. com, Retrieved April 21, 2006 from http://news. com. com/DOJ+to+wrap+up+pro-COPA+testimony/2100-1023_3-220574. html McCullagh, D. (1996). The CDA challenge: The battle of the briefs. Retrieved April 21, 2006 from http://www. xent. com/spring96/0582. html Qazi, U. (1996). The internet censorship controversy, Retrieved April 21, 2006 from http://courses. cs. vt. edu/~cs3604/lib/Censorship/notes. html#6 The Legal Challenge to the Child Online Protection Act (June 29, 2004). Electronic Privacy Information Center, Retrieved April 20, 2006 from http://www. epic. org/free_speech/copa/ Wallace, J. Mangan, M. (1996). The Internet Censorship FAQ, Retrieved April 20, 2006 from http://www. spectacle. org/freespch/faq. htm Notes: Actual Materials Cited †¢ Wallace, J. Mangan, M. (1996). The Internet Censorship FAQ, Retrieved April 20, 2006 from http://www.spectacle. org/freespch/faq. htm What threats of censorship exist for the Internet? The principal threat of Internet censorship today is the Communications Decency Act, a law passed by Congress and signed by the President in January, 1996 which would apply quite radical regulations to speech on the Internet. What is the Communications Decency Act (CDA)? The CDA criminalizes indecent speech on the Internet. One section of the CDA defines indecency as speech depicting or describing sexual or excretory acts or organs in a patently offensive fashion under contemporary community standards. Each of these clausesindecent, depicting or describing, patently offensive, and contemporary community standardshides a landmine threatening the future of freedom of speech in this country. †¢ Communications Decency Act (February 2, 2002). Electronic Privacy Information Center, Retrieved April 20, 2006 from http://www. epic. org/free_speech/cda/ In a landmark decision issued on June 26,1997, the Supreme Court held that the Communications Decency Act violated the First Amendments guarantee of freedom of speech. †¢ The Legal Challenge to the Child Online Protection Act (June 29, 2004). Electronic Privacy Information Center, Retrieved April 20, 2006 from http://www. epic. org/free_speech/copa/ In October 1998, Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), the sequel to CDA. COPA establishes criminal penalties for any commercial distribution of material harmful to minors. †¢ McCullagh, D. (1996). The CDA challenge: The battle of the briefs. Retrieved April 21, 2006 from http://www. xent. com/spring96/0582. html. The arguments advanced in the brief a joint venture of Morality in Media, the National Law Center for Children and Families, the Family Research Council, Enough is Enough! , and the National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families center around one concept: indecency means pornography. That idea stinks like, well, a rotten egg. Their argument, which mirrors the DoJs, goes as follows: 1. The CDA merely updates and amends Federal obscenity statutes and dial-a-porn laws. 2. All the CDA does is require adults who use patently offensive sexual expression to put electronic blinder racks in front of their pornography. 3. The test for indecency is not vague or overbroad and does not apply to serious works of literature, art, science, and politics. 4. What is indecent is well known to the public and the operators of mass communications media facilities. (If indecency is too vague, the CDA is unconstitutional. ) 5. The court has an obligation to interpret these sections narrowly. That is, the three-judge panel should *reinterpret* the CDA to affect only prurient pornography. Taylor calls this judicial narrowing, and when I spoke with him he insisted that it was what the court will do. †¢ Macavinta, C. (1998). Suit filed against CDA II, CNET News. com, Retrieved April 21, 2006 from http://news. com. com/Suit+filed+against+CDA+II/2100-1023_3-217005. html? tag=st. rn The law simply extends into cyberspace laws that protect children from pornography off the Net, Shyla Welch, director of communication for Enough is Enough, which lobbied for the legislation, said today. †¢ Macavinta, C. (1999). DOJ to wrap up pro-COPA testimony, CNET News. com, Retrieved April 21, 2006 from http://news.com. com/DOJ+to+wrap+up+pro-COPA+testimony/2100-1023_3-220574. html Proponents of COPA say it is different from the CDA in that it only applies to sites selling pornography. Witnesses will testify today that it is economically and technically feasible for these sites to check surfers IDs through credit cards, adult PINs, or digital signatures. Justice Department witnesses will testify that Web sites will not be harmed financially by the lawand that defining harmful to minors is not as complicated as the ACLU makes it out to be. After all, 48 states have harmful to minors laws on the books, they will argue. †¢ Qazi, U. (1996). The internet censorship controversy, Retrieved April 21, 2006 from http://courses. cs. vt. edu/~cs3604/lib/Censorship/notes. html#6 Both public and private interest groups have shown great concern for the content of material available via the Internet. They are driven by deeply rooted religious and ethical beliefs. They feel that the Internet is a medium that is being abused to allow extremists, unethical, and immoral individuals to corrupt society.

The Bravery And Loyalty Of Macbeth

The Bravery And Loyalty Of Macbeth People watching the play in Shakespeares time would feel that Macbeth had no fear and is precious and worthy. O valiant cousin, o worthy gentlemen. This suggests and gives people the impression that Macbeth is a brave and steadfast warrior. People would also think that Macbeth is a staggering warrior in the battle and that hes very successful and very resilient. People would also feel that Macbeth is a hammering and a successful person that needs no help therefore because of this he should be worshiped and treated as if hes the God of the universe. People also at that time would also have good views of Macbeth because he showed a lot of bravery and became undefeatable. They would also have a good conclusion about Macbeth because hes unstoppable and so no one in the area was able to prevent him from killing other people, leaving the area with dead people. People would also think that Macbeth is victorious and they would also think that the people in the battle deserved to die and that the people in the battle were as bad as a devil because it says o worthy gentlemen. This also means that Macbeth must have done something beneficial for people in such a high extent and it also suggests that Macbeth fought against whats right and bad to be in such a high rank, to be well respected by people and so the dead people deserved to die. Shakespeares uses a type a language called repetition because the word O is repeated. Also the word Valiant are nowadays archaic, which means that its less common to be used. The purpose of that type of language is to make people think twice and also gives them a reminder and it makes it more focused for the audience to understand Macbeths impression and to keep it in their mind with ease. In act one scene three the audience learn more about Macbeth, good points when he meets the witches because he shows his bravery. When he says stays you imperfect speakers, tell me more this suggests that Macbeth is powerful because hes shouting at the watches and telling the witches what to do. Imperfect speakers suggests that the witches are just making false tales up and that the witches are being untruthful and unreliable about what they are saying, as a result it makes Macbeth assume that the witches are making false tales up and that the witches are lying but hes eager to know and because he is powerful he is screeching at the witches and commanding the witches in an aggressive way to tell more about the story that Macbeth is going to be the king. Macbeth would appear in the scene with a lot of enthusiasm, excitement and with a lot of anger. When he sees the witches Macbeth would react in an enthusiastic way because the witches were telling him stories about his future. Macbeth would also find it alike about what hes hearing also he would think that theyre clowns and are just here to make false stuff up, as a result it would make Macbeth entertained. Macbeth would speak as if hes God because hes all powerful. When Macbeth says tell me more it suggests that Macbeth is angrily and desperately demanding the witches to tell him more about what theyre saying. The quote would also suggest that Macbeth at that time would move in an aggressive way and point at the witches to show and teach the witches that Macbeth is bigger, higher in rank and better and so he is to be well respected and honoured. Tell me more also suggests that Macbeth would be speaking in a cocky way. Macbeth would also be moving in a threatening way and would say s peeches like if you dont stay I will make you regret angrily to get his point across and to show that he is powerful. He would be saying all that because the witches were refusing to follow his instruction and that the witches were being very fast to try to leave the conversation. Shakespeare uses exaggeration because in the quote its written in a more of a demanding way for Macbeth. The purpose of this is to force the witches to follow what Macbeth is saying and to show that Macbeth is interested also to get the witches buzzed. In act 1 scene 3 we find out a lot more about how Macbeth feels when hes told that hes going to be the thane of Cawdor. Macbeth has become thane of Cawdor as third prediction by the witches. If chance will have me king, why chance may crown me, without my stir. This means Macbeth may become the king because the witches have also predicted this. He feels that the next the prediction that hes going to become king can also be true and he feels confused but glad at the same time. Macbeth would also feel that what he heard is true; however he wouldnt do anything to be the king. He would leave it all in luck. The quote also suggests that Macbeth isnt really self-encouraged to do anything to be the king instead he would leave it all in luck to be the king, and also he would feel that there is not point for him to stir stuff up in anyway or to fight to be the king when there is no need because he is very powerful. This is a rhetorical question, because Macbeth is asking himself that quote and the purpose of this is to make Macbeth think twice, does he think its worth it, what the consequences will be, how can he overcome?, whats the benefit etc. Similarly the purpose is like taking a move in Chess because once youve done that there are a lot to think from and it gives you a buzz, impressions and it makes you ask yourself whether its worth it or not etc. In scene 1 scene 7 Macbeth doesnt want to kill King Duncan because he says I am his kinsman and his subject, this suggests that Macbeth is very closely related to King Duncan and that Macbeth has blood relationships with King Duncan and that they both go along with each other very strongly. To clarify Macbeth is trying to say I am a cousin of the king and I will serve him. The quote also suggests that King Duncan is like a father to Macbeth and so its Macbeths duty to take care of him and treat him with great respect as if hes the slave of King Duncan. It also suggests that he cant get along with the crime as he is the kings man. The purpose of this language is to tell Lady Macbeth that Macbeth is a cousin of the king and so hes doesnt want to kill King Duncan. At the beginning of the conversation Macbeth decides not to murder King Duncan, he says we will proceed no further in this business. This means that Macbeth will not take a step to follow her instruction and that he will take no tolerance with the conversation. It also suggests that Macbeth will definitely not going to murder King Duncan and hes feeling guilty and scared of what hes planning to do and so he doesnt want to go any further. His last speech to Lady Macbeth suggests that Macbeth is prepared to kill King Duncan; he says I am settled. This means that Macbeth is prepared, certain to kill King Duncan, steady and stable to go into action and kill King Duncan. This also suggests that Macbeth will stay 100 per cent focused on King Duncan to carry out the murder; also it suggests that Macbeth will be successful due to his focuses. The purpose of this language is to tell the audience how Macbeth feels and what hes trying to say. This changes because the first reaction of Macbeth suggests that hes definitely not going to murder King Duncan and he thinks hell feel guilty, very hesitating and that hell take zero tolerance. But the last reactions of Macbeth suggests the opposite, Macbeth feels that hes 100% certain to do it, also hes eager and focused to do so. The reason why this changes because his ambition for power grows as well as being persuaded to do so. In the background Macbeth has a lot of loyalty and is honoured and well respected by others due to his bravery. He also has a lot of power and it grows dramatically and later hes very eager to become the king. Later on even though his main ambition was to become king he doesnt want to reach a stage where he thinks its bad. However his wife persuades him and argues against Macbeth, persuading him to kill King Duncan and eventually she manages to pull him to her side. Her wife uses a variety of techniques to persuade Macbeth so that he murders King Duncan. She accuses Macbeth of being a coward and soft because he doesnt want to kill King Duncan and this has an effect on Macbeth and most her speeches that she says to Macbeth is totally the opposite of what people thinks of him, and therefore it makes Macbeth feel that what her wife is saying is right, and for Macbeth in order for him to prove that Lady Macbeth is wrong he must kill King Duncan. Eventually all that stirring up that her wife does to Macbeth has an huge effect, eventually, Macbeth decides to follow her instruction and do it because Macbeth wants to prove it wrong and therefore he wants to kill King Duncan. In act 2 scene 1,the scene opens with some casual conversation which tells us that its very dark, and that something bad is about to happen. The audience must be in a way of state like as if they are watching a very horror movie; William Shakespeare made this scene scary just to match up with the killing of the king. But at the beginning of this scene it starts off with Banquo and his son Fleance in the courtyard of Macbeths castle, and Fleance is carrying a torch in this scene. Banquo asks Fleance, How goes the night, boy? Hes not asking Fleance how hes doing; hes asking how late it is. Fleance hasnt heard a clock strike, but the moon is down, so it must be past midnight. Banquo then hands his sword to Fleance, who is apparently serving as his fathers squire. Banquo also gives Fleance something else, perhaps the belt and sheath for the sword. It appears that Banquo is getting ready to go to bed, and he remarks that Theres husbandry in heaven; / their candles are all out. Husbandry i s thriftiness; Banquo means that heaven has gone to bed, and has put out its candles for the night. The moon is down, the night is starless, and there are no street lights in Macbeths castle. In short, its darker than any dark most of us have ever seen. And within this dark is fear. Banquo is dead tired and feels as heavy as lead, but hes fighting sleep because hes afraid of his own thoughts or dreams. He asks the powers above to Restrain in me the cursed thoughts that nature / Gives way to in repose!, but we dont know exactly what thoughts hes afraid of. A little later he says that he has dreamed of the weird sisters, so maybe hes been thinking about their prophecies. Perhaps he fears that Macbeth is planning murder. Or he might fear his own thoughts about how he might become the father of kings. Or maybe hes just been having uncanny thoughts, such as seem to creep up on us in a very dark night, when every bush can be a bear. Whatever fear it is thats keeping Banquo awake, its also made him edgy. When he sees another torch, he takes his sword from Fleance and calls out Whos there?. Logically, he should have nothing to fear within the locked gates of Macbeths castle, but he still feels the need to have his sword ready, just in case. But the main factor of this scene is when Macbeth goes in to kill the king of Scotland, and it all starts off with him preparing everything for the kill, until when the bell is rang by lady Macbeth just to make clear that theres no one there in the castle that is awake apart from lady Macbeth and Macbeth himself. The audience at this point would be shocked at Macbeth because of the go along of Macbeth with Lady Macbeth; the audience would not be in favour with Macbeth due to going to kill the king. While Macbeth is getting ready to kill the king and is waiting for the thumbs up by his wife at his quiet and peaceful castle something appears in front of him. Macbeth says: Is this a dagger which I see before me, the handle toward my hand? Come, let me clutch thee. This conveys that Macbeth is standing in the corridor of his castle when suddenly he discovers the floating dagger which is in front of him, he is really confused and does not know what to do, he is talking to himself saying is it a false creation of the mind or is it related to the witches, Macbeth says: A dagger of the mind, a false creation, proceeding from the heat-oppressed brain?. The dagger seems to be showing Macbeth the path which he already is in he yet again talks to himself, he says: Thou marshallst me the way that I was going, and a instrument I was to use, the readers of this play would be saying that the floating dagger is from the evil wayward sisters and they are trying to push Macbeth into killing Duncan. But suddenly within seconds Macbeth looks above to see the dagger once more, he discovers that the dagger he saw earlier is not the same, he discovers that th e dagger has gouts of blood on, dipping away on the concrete floor, he says: I see thee still, and, on thy blade and dudgeon, gouts of blood, which was not so before. He follows the dagger into the hall way up the stairs leading him to the chamber of the king Duncan, where he lays in bed, with the drunken guards a sleep not knowing anything thats going on beside them. The bell of Macbeths house rang; giving Macbeth a signal from Lady Macbeth to let him know thats everything is fine. Macbeth says: I go, and it is done: the bell invites me. Hear it not, Duncan, for it is a knell that summons thee to heaven or hell, this is showing that Macbeth is ready to go and kill Duncan. Shakespeare wanted the audience to feel very sad and angry with Macbeth of what he has done in this scene and I think that this scene changed the opinions of readers likes of Macbeth to dislikes. In act 2 scene 2, Macbeth seems to find the killing regretful and bad. Ill go no more: I am afraid, to think what I have done: look ont again, I dare not. This suggests that Macbeth is a timid, terrified, angry, regretful, apologetic and guilty because he was forced and controlled and unwillingly murdered King Duncan. Look ont again, I dare not is suggesting that hes physically trying to force himself to flash back in his mind what happened but he cant because hes scared. Ill go no more: I am afraid, to think what I have done suggests that hes scared because he killed his sort of father King Duncan who he always honoured and respected, however he unwillingly he killed King Duncan and so Macbeths main aim would be to get revenge on his wife because Macbeth ended up with a lot of bad feelings and didnt want to murder King Duncan at first but he was forced to do it by Lady Macbeth and she tricked Macbeth by saying stuff like youre a coward and your weak so that Macbeth gets offended and carry out the murder. Shakespeares uses a variety of techniques. The letter I gets repeated 4 times. The purpose of this is to tell the readers how Macbeth is feeling and no one else, another of its purpose is to show that Macbeth is saying it which he is saying is more exact and that no one else is saying it. Another technique that Shakespeare uses is rhetorical question, the purpose of this is to make Macbeth think what he done and thing in which he couldve done to no do etc. The last technique that Shakespeare uses is opinion; this is a great way to let people see how Macbeth feels during that event. In Shakespeares time people were scared of witches and potions; nowadays people arent scared of witches so if it happened in a modern time people wouldnt be that scared whereas if it happened in Shakespeares time the audience would find it frightening. Appearance would have a difference people nowadays would were a robe and a wizard hat to represent that theyre witches which would make easy for the audience to identify them. In olden times they wouldnt look like this, their would be more like a tramp style, they would look ugly and dirty and it would be much harder to identify who they are, the audience would think that they are beggars and nothing else. The appearance of women also has a big difference nowadays women wears bikini, bras, and skirts whereas in Shakespeares time women wore gowns and dresses. Men would dress as women in Shakespeares time because there were no women actors because they were weak to make a suggestion whereas if it happened in a modern time there would be women actors and they would have great power. Also in Shakespeares time black magic and unusual form of magic e.g. potions, vials would be more commonly used whereas nowadays they are hardly used. The speeches would have a huge difference compared to Shakespeares time, they would use very classic words and they would speak formally in Shakespeares time would speak formally instead of slang whereas nowadays slang is more commonly used to get our message across. The use of Technology would also have a massive difference nowadays if it happened in a theatre there would be sound effects, smoke effects, and lightning effects and so on to keep spectators entertained also the performers would have a great advantage to get their message across because of loud voice due to microphone usage. The theatre would be performed live so that people can watch it. If it happened in Shakespeares time there would be no use of technology meaning that no sound effects would be used other than instruments, the audience in Shakespeares time would find i t very difficult on what the performers were saying because there would be no microphone to extend their voice and so the performers voice wouldnt be that loud, this would make the performers difficult to get their message across and also the spectators would find it hard to hear what they were saying. The acting would also have a major difference if it happened in a modern time the performers would use machine guns, laser weapons rifles etc. Whereas if it happened in Shakespeares time the performers would use swords, knifes, bows, magic etc. In conclusion of this play, I think that the play Macbeth written by William Shakespeare is one of the greatest tragic dramas the world has ever encountered. Macbeth is my favourite drama play of all time and another thing that is attracting the readers is the writers use of dramatic techniques to convey his character to the audience. I really like this play due to fascination of kings and queens and most of all the witches, I would recommend this play to other people who have not read it before, it is BRILLIANT! I think that the main cause for Macbeths actions inside the play is because of the witches who played an important role in the play to try and convince Macbeth that what the witches were telling, was the truth but also his driving ambition to become king had an effect on him because all he could think of is to become king and this driven him to the driving seat. But not only was his driving ambition of becoming king was the main cause for Macbeths actions, it was also his ve ry ambitious wife who controlled her husband into killing Duncan to become king, she had the main event in her hands and that is when lady Macbeth persuaded Macbeth to murder King Duncan. I also think that Macbeth was really brave to go along and kill Duncan, and to eventually become king but also I think that he was very stupid and gullible to actually do this because at the end of the play he dies in a painful death and that is because of his driving ambition of becoming king, due to his wife and mainly the witches. Although Macbeth was a good and a well honourable man at the beginning (for example, he was called Brave Macbeth), he made one big mistake that put him in the worst situation. Right at the beginning he was well respect and honoured by his surroundings. But at the end because he killed King Duncan because he got persuaded due to his ambition, as well as being persuaded to do so by his wife, at the end Macbeth became very disrespectful, and became very cruel because he murdered anyone surrounded by him and because of this he died in a painful death. Macbeth says I will not be afraid of death and bane, Till Birnam forest come to dunsinane. This suggests tha t Macbeth is not afraid to die, also hes saying that is England and that is Scotland and so come and get me, to the warriors. I would personally say that Macbeth is a coward because he unwillingly killed King Duncan and also because he had a free will, he couldve chose the option to reject and to not kill King Duncan. And even though Macbeth had a free choice he didnt reject Lady Macbeths instructions, so I believe he is a coward. I think that Macbeth had changed because practically he showed great respect and treated King Duncan as if its his own father and he had good views of him. But he changed because eventually because he murdered King Duncan cowardly because he was controlled by his wife to do so despite Macbeth didnt want to but he followed her instruction to murder King Duncan. He changed because he killed his own beloved King Duncan when he didnt want to; this also suggests that Lady Macbeth had influence on Macbeth and that Lady Macbeth is sly and cunning. Macbeth had great power in the background but he couldnt make use of it to reject what Lady Macbeth instructed him to do. Macbeth was weaker a nd didnt have the courage to fight or argue back with his wife. It also suggests that Macbeth was a coward because he obeyed Lady Macbeths rule when he didnt want to.