Greatest Accomplishment

While it may vary between people, I believe the greatest achievement in life is being happy. While being happy isn't a tangible item, it is a characteristic that can make someone's life enjoyable, and without it, miserable. As we can see in Macbeth, he goes to certain extents to achieve one of his many potential achievements, which include becoming king, securing his position as king, and pleasing his wife. Although its hard to distinguish what Macbeth finds most important, we certainly know he cannot have everything. Are we even sure of if he really wants to be king? Or is Lady Macbeth the mastermind behind all of Macbeth's twisted thoughts and bloody deeds. The Tragedy of Macbeth isn't called 'The Tragedy' for no reason. We as readers can tell that Macbeth has lost all of his happiness, due to the deeds he has done. He has begun a demoralization process in which he loses happiness each and every time he performs a deed. With each and every deed he performs, he puts less thought in to it as well, meaning common sense.

I believe that if someone is happy, they tend to make the right decisions for themselves and others. With happiness comes intelligence, worldly knowledge, and dedication to doing the right thing.

Evil vs Goodness, and Fear

One theme throughout Macbeth is fear- and what to do with or how to handle fear.
Furthermore, in act 4 scene 2, Lady Macduff said something interesting.  "Whither should I fly? / I have done no harm. But I remember now / I am in this earthly world, where to do harm / Is often laudable, to do good sometime / Accounted dangerous folly. Why then, alas, / Do I put up that womanly defense, / To say I have done no harm?" Lady Macduff is saying that she has done nothing wrong or harmed anyone, but she has to remember something- sometimes evil can be praised rather than looked down upon while doing the right thing can be dangerous. This shows the conflict of evil and goodness in the world, and how sometimes unfortunately evil, conniving, crime, deceiving, and hatred can rise above being a good person and doing the right thing. 

Act 4, scene 1

Some thoughts after reading act 4, scene 1: I thought it was funny how Macbeth thought when he was with the three witches that he was in charge. It seems as if now because he is king, he is a lot more confident and thinks he is much more powerful. However, when he is with the witches, who use magic and spirits, he is definitely not the one running the show. He is the one begging for their visions, yet he thinks he can boss them around. Overall I have seen a huge attitude change for Macbeth since the beginning of the book. In the first act he couldn't even stick up for himself with his wife, now he is deciding to kill Macduff and his family (While i think he is just talking the talk with that and will not walk the walk, it still shows a very different mind and moral set than he originally held in the beginning)! Furthermore, I think its also kind of funny that as a king, he is obviously going to have a lot of enemies. However, I do not believe he truly knows the right way to deal with his enemies just yet. Lastly, I believe it is inevitable fate that Banquo's sons and grandsons will take the crown and be passing it down from Macbeth. If fate is in fact inevitable, how will Macbeth live with this? He will just continue to kill anyone who comes in his way and it will make him crazy (crazier than he already is). At the end of the scene he says that he will do this deed before he loses his sense of purpose. I think he already kind of has lost his sense of purpose because if its Banquo's family blood line that will succeed him, then what was the point? Either way, there is no going back now. He has already killed Duncan, which changed him, and he already got people to kill Banquo. Now he does not have a problem with killing people like he did before because he is so wrapped up in fulfilling his achievements.

Greatest Achievement

As a teenager or as a person who is growing, the achievements and success experienced during these times can be considered not important or minute in the grand scheme of things. And looking towards the future, the greatest accomplishment might be considered making a lot of money, having a nice house and to drive a nice car. However, the greatest achievement is not any object or possession.
        Even though this is very vague, can't fully be understood and some may consider it "cheesy" the greatest achievement in life is happiness. What is the point of life if you are not happy? Even if you make a large amount of money or driving a Lamborghini, if you are not happy then those do not matter. However, those may make certain people happy and in that case, they have succeeded. In order to achieve this, I would go to great lengths to achieve this. The good news is that any one has the power and ability to do what makes them happy or to stop anything that does not. I would not cross my morals or break any laws. If I did, I would possibly be full of regret and maybe even serve time in prison depending on the extent of the action. I would not break morals or the laws because the consequences for both would be deterring in the progress towards happiness, almost like one step forward three steps back. Although this can be considered the greatest achievement in life, it is difficult to understand and to obtain because what really is happiness?

What is your greatest accomplishment?

When we think of the greatest accomplishment we could achieve now, we would probably say passing Bio, scoring goals in a sports game, or even a profession we hope to achieve one day. The list is really endless, but if you look at everything you HAVE accomplished, what does it make you feel? Happy, joy, satisfaction. Among all the small things we say we must accomplish, it all leads to our individual happiness. To pass a Bio test, we all study countless hours, or make hundreds of flash cards. To score a goal in our sports team we put in the extra effort in practice, or eat healthier. Basically, it isn't likely to pass moral or legal boundaries to achieve happiness. We can connect this to Macbeth's definition of happiness. He murders Duncan, and Banquo so he can secure his spot as king. which will make him happy. In order to be a ruler, Macbeth decides to cross moral and legal boundaries, which result in him, digging a deeper, and deeper hole for himself. Overall, it depends on how far your willing to go in order to accomplish something, and in the case of Macbeth, he was willing to kill anyone who got in his way.

“What is the greatest accomplishment you could ever achieve in life? What lengths would you go to in order to achieve this accomplishment? Consider the moral and legal boundaries you would or would not cross.”

Honestly, Macbeth has really been bothering me lately. He makes everything a big deal from messes he created and brought upon himself.  In Act 3 scene 4 it is obviously clear Macbeth is troubled from telling the two murderers to kill Banquo. He has another hallucination, which he only has from pure fear. While Lady Macbeth was pushing for him to kill Duncan, no one told him to kill Banquo. He killed Banquo out of fear, frustration, and anger. Now he is paying the price from that decision because he thinks Banquo's spirit is haunting him. I think he totally deserves it and I hold no sympathy for him. Their was no need to kill Banquo, he could have handled the situation head on instead of being a coward and just getting people to kill Banquo for him. This brings me to my last point, obviously Macbeth got people to murder Banquo for him because he couldn't do it himself.

I agree with Sam's post earlier in which Macbeth is just continuing to dig a deeper hole for himself, one bad  decision after another. Sam pointed out that after Macbeth killed Duncan, he left all his previous beliefs and value. I totally agree with that, which is why it was an easier decision to kill Banquo. Lastly, Sam also said that Macbeth is abusing his power in making these decisions. Because Macbeth is now king, anything he needs is at his disposal which will influence further bad decisions.  

Lady Macbeth originally wore the pants in the relationship, but Macbeth has no stepped up and taken lead

Macbeth has a change of attitude from acts 1 and 2 to act 3. In the beginning of Macbeth, it is quite clear that Lady Macbeth used to "wear the pants in the relationship". She not only made the decisions, but she also enforced them as well. When Macbeth voiced his opinion that he was uncomfortable with killing King Duncan, she made sure that he still did it.  While women were seen as the temptresses to men, which is shown in this case as Lady Macbeth is enforcing evil upon Macbeth, Macbeth is a coward for not doing what he wants to do. However, their is a change in pace for Macbeth. All of the sudden, Macbeth starts making the decisions and finally takes charge. Furthermore, he even leaves Lady Macbeth out of his plan, showing that he has truly taken the reigns on their relationship.

I think their is a clear reason for Macbeth's sudden urge to take the wheel when Lady Macbeth has been doing it their whole lives. Through out act 3, it is clear that Macbeth feels threatened by Banquo. If the prophecies are right, then Banquo will be the start of his family bloodline for his sons and grandsons. This would mean that Macbeth does not give the throne to any of his successors. If this is true, if Macbeth will be handing the throne off to Banquo's family, if Macbeth will not have any heirs, then he fought for a lost cause. His fight being killing King Duncan and his lost cause being that he will not be able to give the throne to someone from his bloodline. Macbeth killed a human being, something he can never take back. This action (strongly influenced by Lady Macbeth) corrupted his soul; it took away his dignity, his conscience, and his innocence. But for what? Furthermore, clearly killing King Duncan has affected him. When Banquo poses as a strong threat, he has no problem with hiring someone to kill him, a decision he made on his own. Before he killed Duncan, I don't think he would have made that call. But again, for what? Overall, Macbeth is angry that Lady Macbeth basically "bullied" him (yes, he is still a coward for letting her bully him into doing something he was unsettled about) into killing Duncan even though he just ended up fighting for Banquo's kids and gained nothing in the process. Therefore, he has decided to take matters into his own hands and take charge. Because Lady Macbeth really pushed him to kill Duncan when all of it may have been for nothing because their is a large possibility he won't have any successors, Macbeth is now thinking for himself.

On a different note, I realized something else. It felt odd in the beginning of the book that Lady Macbeth was wearing the pants in their relationship, and it was really Macbeth who needed to hold her hand. However, why should that have felt strange? While woman's rights are very good today (at least in America but they still have a long way to come), it still seems as if their is a mentality that men should and would make the decisions. In acts 1 and 2 their was a stereo typical "gender swap" and in act 3 is switched back to the "normal way" with the male being dominant and independent.

How far I would go for my greatest accomplishments in life

What is the greatest accomplishment you could ever achieve in life? What lengths would you go to in order to achieve this accomplishment? Consider the moral and legal boundaries you would or would not cross.                 

The greatest accomplishment I could ever achieve in life is happiness. While I think I might know what I want in life when I grow up now, it changes all the time. When I was younger i wanted to be a firemen, fashion designer, mom, princess, and many more jobs. However, even now I still don't truly know what I want to do when I grow up. At this point in my life, I think I want to be a fashion designer and artist, but I also want to be a doctor and have a family. Truth is, I have no idea what I want to be when I grow up, but I do know one thing.  I want whatever it is I do, to make me happy. Therefore, it does not matter what accomplishments I gather or achieve, for it all comes down to the fact if I am happy or not. I would go to any lengths to be happy because if I am not happy, then what's the point of anything?                 

In Macbeth, Lady Macbeth and Macbeth killed King Duncan in order for Macbeth to be appointed the next king. They thought that being king and queen is the greatest accomplishment they could ever achieve in life, so they went as far as to kill someone in order to get it. However, they might find that being king and queen is not actually all it was caked up to be. And then what? Then they have killed someone for a cause they no longer feel as strong or needy for before.               

While I would do anything to be happy, I would never kill someone. I would never kill someone in order to achieve something I need, like how the Macbeth's killed Duncan so they could be king and queen. Nothing I could ever need or want would require me (or me being part of a plan like Lady Macbeth) to take someone else's life. 

Gender Swaps

                 Through out Macbeth, their seems to be a gender swap of the stereo typical woman and man. In Macbeth, Lady Macbeth is relentless and unremitting in getting what she wants. However, Macbeth always ends up agreeing to Lady Macbeth's ideas and terms even when he feels unsettled about something. Therefore, Macbeth is in a way "walked over" by Lady Macbeth. This swaps the typical gender "stereotypes", being that normally the male is the dominant one in a relationship who makes all the decisions and the wife is just the mother and house hold side kick. Lady Macbeth makes all the decisions and makes sure they follow through with it in their relationship, and Macbeth just follows what she says. 

                  With this "gender swap", Shakespeare is saying a few things. First of all, Shakespeare wrote this during the Renaissance. During the Renaissance women's rights and how they were looked upon was tremendously decreased. This is the case because people started looking more into the bible, and in the Adam and Eve story, Eve is the temptress of Adam. Therefore, woman were seen as witches who brought evil to the world and were incapable of wisdom, thought, and mortality. In Macbeth, Lady Macbeth is the temptress to Macbeth. When Macbeth tells her that he does not want to kill King Duncan, Lady Macbeth does not care because she knows the task must be done. 

While Shakespeare is showing that women are the temptress to men and the people who bring evil into this world (Macbeth being the "innocent" one who does not want to kill Duncan), I think this portrays something different. If Macbeth doesn't want to kill Duncan or does not want to do anything that Lady Macbeth is suggesting, then don't do it. Even if Lady Macbeth is being the temptress in this situation (which I agree she is), Macbeth is simply being a coward for not sticking up for what he wants or believes. At least Lady Macbeth is strong and adamant on what she wants, while Macbeth is a follower.

What is the greatest accomplishment you could ever achieve in life? What lengths would you go to in order to achieve this accomplishment? Consider the moral and legal boundaries you would or would not cross.

Receiving an A, but screwing over my best friend and to know or not to know my fate

The questions is, "If you could achieve an A in this class but it meant screwing over your best friend, would you do it?" There is not an easy answer or solution to this question. First off, if I decided not to screw over my best friend, could I still get an A in the class because I deserve it? If yes, then I would definitely not screw over my best friend because if I work hard, I could earn myself an A. This would be much more rewarding and fulfilling rather than having to bring my best friend down to achieve something.  In history, most rulers gain power by simply taking other peoples power and making sure everyone has less power than themselves. However, I do not agree with this method. I believe the ruler would gain power when they deserve it. If someone is truly great, they can achieve success without having to bring down other people.  Therefore, I would never screw over my best friend to be given an A in this class (partially because I love my best friend, but more importantly I can just go out and earn the A myself). 

 The next question is, "If you could know your fate in this class, or in high school, or in life, would you want to know, considering it would make all the decisions you make inconsequential?" I would not want to know any of my fates, mostly because I find information like that quite unsettling. I just want to live life and let fate take its course without me having any previous knowledge of it. Knowing my fate is like seeing the answer key to a test before I take it.  Honestly, I think knowing my fate would make life kind of boring. I enjoy the vicissitudes of life.

Fate

If you could know your fate in this class, or in high school(where you got into college), or in life (your death), would you want to know, considering it would make all the "decisions" you make inconsequential?  

If I could know my fate in this class I would want to know because then I wouldn't be concerned about if I was doing enough work or trying hard enough in the class. If I knew I was going to get an F then I wouldn't waste time reading each homework assignment carefully or stay up late finishing an essay because I would know that they were inconsequential. However, if I knew I was going to get an A, I would know that everything I was studying for and working hard on would turn out well, and I wouldn't worry about it at all.
If I could know my fate in high school, I would choose not to because if I didn't get into a good school I would be disappointed years early. I would spend the rest of my high school career thinking about things I could have done better and being worried about what will happen in my life. I wouldn't want to spend so much extra time worrying about what will happen to me before I have to. If I knew that I was going to get into a good college I would not have any motivation at all and spend the rest of high school doing nothing, which would not be good.
If I could know my fate in life, I would not choose to because then I would live my whole life differently. My entire life would lead up to the exact moment I am going to die, and that would affect the way I would drive my life. I would rather just live my life without interruption than to try to choose how to spend my final days or weeks. Also, I would be extremely nervous in the months leading up to my death, and that is not how I want to spend the end of my life.  

Reading Questions, Act I Macbeth

Feel free to respond to any or none of the questions below

1.  If you could achieve an A in this class but it meant screwing over your friend, would you do it?

2.  If you could know your fate in this class, or in high school(where you got into college), or in life (your death), would you want to know, considering it would make all the "decisions" you make inconsequential?  

Salinger Tone in De Daumier-Smith's Blue Period

Similar to what many of you have said, I don't believe that Salinger's tone is mocking or criticizing the depressing, blue period that Jean is going through, since Salinger himself experienced it after war. However I do think Salinger is mocking Jean's innocence or often lack of it when he tries to create this corrupted alter-ego. As we have seen in many of the past short stories, Salinger's tone often criticizes the loss of innocence in society and how corruption has taken over, and this short story is no exception.
Jean has created an alter-ego that consists of his "dead wife" and parents that are very close friends with Pablo Picasso(who also had a blue period), as well as his home in Southern France. Throughout the story, you see Jean struggle to fit in his alter ego and the reality that is his depressing life. Salinger makes fun of Jean's somewhat ignorance when Jean talks about how "(he) drew people in evening clothes stepping out of limousines on opening nights-lean, erect, super chic couples."(206) It is obvious that Jean is confused by this high class lifestyle, while Salinger loathes it. The way Saligner has Jean describe his drawing shows that he understands the corruption around him, but not where he fits in. As for Jean's alter-ego, Salinger mocks Jeans lack of ability to live up to this character that he has created. "For one thing my mustache, however sparse, was all mine"(221) shows this young man, who is obviously only familiar with the innocence in the world, trying to be this classy, sophisticated man. Salinger mocks Jean because he knows how much of a phony he is, but continues with the lies when he says "Had old Fu Manchu known from the beginning that I was wearing, among other misleading attachments and effects, a nineteen-year-old boy's mustache?"(220) In some ways, Jean calls himself out here, telling the reader that he is a nineteen year-old trying to fit into the life of a corrupted man. Salinger reiterates Jeans innocence by mentioning how Jean hears moaning coming from Yoshoto's room, but is oblivious to what it is. Along with that, Jean references the color blue(innocence) many times especially with its relation to the white(pure) goose painting.
Clearly, Salinger's tone doesn't reference(in a mocking way) Jean's depression or blue period at all, however his oblivious attitude towards the corrupted society around him does cause Salinger to criticize his corrupted alter-ego, and lack of innocence.

Tone in De Daumier- Smith's Blue Period

Reading the Nine Stories, it is apparent that Salinger related well and understands youth and young adults. I do not see him as mocking Jean at all in this story, rather he cleverly uses the narrator to look back and have perspective on teenagers and young adults. This perspective provides an insight to how difficult it is to be young and dealing the heartache of loss and loneliness. Jean lost his mother, had to leave Paris, a place that he loved to go to New York, a place where he felt foreign and live with his step father who is seen to have already moved on, which adds to his loneliness. Salinger portrays Jean as someone who is seeking loneliness he says on page 201 ”I prayed for the city to be cleared of people, for the gift of being alone – a-l-o-n-e: which is the one New York prayer that rarely gets lost or delayed in channel and in no time at all everything I touched turned to solid loneliness,” but shows us throughout the story that his loneliness is a reaction to the loss of his mother. While it seemed humorous that Jean was deceitful, made up a relationship with Picasso and was grandiose in his behavior, he was using this an armor to protect him from his true feeling of being alone and having no connection. Jean tried hard to connect with people, to break through of the loneliness, but he was doing it in a ridiculous way by writing long letters, to Sister Irma and professing a high level of familiarity with her. Overall I think Salinger is relating and identify with Jean because he understands that youth and young adults can behave oddly due to forces out of their control. 

De Daumier Smith's Blue Period

Salinger seems to be identifying with Jean in De Daumier Smith's Blue Period. The title of this short story already says a whole lot for the importance of the story and how it fits in with the collection. The blue period refers to Salinger, Jean, Picasso, and the time period.  After Salinger returned from war, he struggled with fitting back into society and wanted to be alone. He was in search of a spiritual journey as he was determined to serve God. This was Salinger's "blue period". Therefore, because Salinger went through a blue period himself, I don't think he would criticize Jean's blue period since he knows how it feels. 

Furthermore, Jean shares the same initials with Salinger, which is not a coincidence. Sharing the same initials shows the connection between Salinger and Jean, and Salinger is emphasizing with Jean as opposed to mocking him. Also, we don't know Jeans real name, just his alter ego, Jean de Daumier Smith. This shows the struggle of identity, which furthermore connects with Salinger who has trouble finding himself after war.

An example of Salinger identifying with Jean is in the beginning of the short story. Jean “prayed for the city to be cleared of direct action, for the gift of being alone- a-l-o-n-e.” When Salinger returned from war he spent most of his time in solitaire, just as Jean yearned to be alone after he returned from Paris. 

Overall, because their seems to be many connections between Salinger and Jean, Salinger is truly emphasizing with Jean rather than making fun of him. Jean could be Salinger reflecting on himself, just as Jean reflected on himself with his self portraits (and Picasso did too). 

De Daumier-Smith's Blue Period: An Inscrutable story

At first, it appears that Salinger is making fun of high-society and Jean De Daumier in De Daumier-Smith’s Blue Period. This is displayed when Jean writes to Monsieur Yoshoto and creates a fake persona. He describes a life of luxury and claims his parents were friends with Picasso. This false profile reflects Salinger’s view of the upper class and how, as Holden Caufield says it, “Phony” they are. Jean also holds himself to very high esteem, feeling his talent is being wasted at the Yoshotos’ art school. He thinks, “Here I am-a man who had won three first-prizes, a very close friend of Picasso (which I actually was beginning to think I was)-Being used as a translator. The punishment didn’t begin to fit the crime.” Jean’s rather pompous attitude is seen in how Salinger chose to type the letters of the story. There is a great deal of emphasis on the words “inscrutable” and “unendurable,” mocking the overdramatic behavior of aristocrats. However, it appears Salinger actually sympathizes with Jean and uses him as a way to show his mockery of high society, rather than the character himself.

Jean, when he first moves back to New York, craves isolation like Salinger. When there appears to be a large crowd in front of his hotel, he states, “I prayed for the city to be cleared of direct action, for the gift of being alone- a-l-o-n-e.” Not only is this a reference to Salinger’s life as a recluse, but to Esme’s tendency to spell out words. For Esme-With Love and Squalor is one of the three stories written in the first person. Furthermore, Jean writes a letter describing his false identity to have “Reached the cold, white, isolating summits of my profession.” Jean also paints seventeen self-portraits in the span of a month, mirroring how Salinger’s stories tend to reflect parts of himself.

Tone in 'De Daumier-Smith's Blue Period'

I think that the author (Salinger) seemed to identify with Jean more that he criticized/mocked Jean. Throughout the book, Salinger appears to feel bad for what happened to Jean; this is because he does not make Jean seem foolish for the way he feels about some things, such as being alone and how he felt about Sister Irma. For example, on page 201, Salinger seems to sympathize with Jean. This is because Jean says, “I prayed for the city to be cleared of people, for the gift of being alone- a-l-o-n-e: which is the one New York prayer that rarely gets lost or delayed in channels, and in no time at all everything I touched turned to solid loneliness.” I thought that the way this was written showed that Salinger identified with Jean and may have at one point in time felt the same thing. The reason I think this is because we have learned about Salinger’s life and Salinger towards the end of his life always wanted to be alone. Salinger even separated himself from his family-thats how alone he was.wanted to be. 
Another place in the book where I felt that Salinger was identifying with Jean is on page 212. While Jean is on the train with M. Yoshoto, he writes/talks about how he is feeling and makes the statement “Either in spite, or because, of his silence, I talked incessantly, with my legs crossed, ankle on knee, and constantly using my sock as an absorber for the perspiration on my palm.” In this part of the story, this could have been a very easy way to make the tone of the story mocking/criticizing Jean, but it does not appear that way. Salinger just ‘says it how it is’ and doesn’t try to mock Jean. Being nervous is a common, natural thing, and happens to most people and that is the way Salinger seemed to write it; just as a detail to let you know Jean was nervous, just like everyone is at some point or another.

            Lastly, there is another quote from the story that shows how Salinger was identifying with Jean, not mocking/criticizing him. When Jean finds out that Sister Irma cannot study at Les Amis Des Vieux Maîtres, he is disheartened and says at dinner with the Yoshoto’s he wasn’t feeling well. He follows that up by saying to the reader “(I lied, in 1939, with far greater conviction than I told the truth-so I was positive that M. Yoshoto looked at me with suspicion when I said I wasn’t feeling well.)’’ During this point in the book, and especially with this quote, Salinger could have easily changed the tone so that he was criticizing Jean for his bad decisions. But,  instead, Salinger used this quote to express just how disappointed Jean was.