Englewood

Macbeth is one of the Bard's richest and most fertile plays for the blooming of criticism and discussion. The central thrust of the criticism in this volume is the argument between structuralists like Cleanth Brooks and other critics who say that the structuralists go too far in trying to fit Shakespeare's imagery into a preconceived framework. For example: Brooks contorts his analysis of Macbeth's soliloquy before Duncan's murder in order to address the recurring image of babies (he also defines Macduff's son as a baby). There is a lot of ambiguity in the image of "the babe striding the blast", and perhaps Brooks goes to far in trying to parse the ambiguity as something intentional, to play with the audience's notion of pity.

Personally, I agree that there is a clear structure to the imagery in Macbeth - there are too many patterns and recurrences to think that the author did not have a plan or that the images lack unity. And I think that the structuralists serve a purpose in tying these ideas together. However, I don't think things fit together as neatly as critics would like, and that which is paradoxical or ambiguous lies at the heart of this play. Macbeth is a problem play, in that there is not a simple truth or moral that is waiting to be unpacked or understood.… (mer)