Skip to main content

What is the importance of plotting in Act III, Scene 1 of Macbeth?

The word "plotting" refers to an act in which the perpetrator(s) secretly plan to commit an evil deed. In this sense, then, plotting, by its very nature, seeks a malicious outcome, meaning those who indulge in the act do not wish to do any good and are, consequentially, evil.


Plotting in Act III, Scene 1 is important because it reveals the extent of Macbeth's perfidy. The scene illustrates that he has reached such a state of ruthless and cold-blooded malice, that he has lost all rectitude. There are no boundaries to his pervasive perversion, so much so that he plots the murder of his confidante and friend Banquo and Banquo's son, Fleance.


It is clear from the beginning of the scene that Macbeth has already started plotting Banquo's assassination. Macbeth, who earlier somewhat reluctantly acquiesced to his wife's insistence on killing king Duncan, has now become a master in the art of murder. His conversation with Banquo most pertinently illustrates his sly and wicked intent. He seeks as much information about Banquo's journey as possible so he may perfectly plan the assassination.


When Macbeth meets the assassins, he blatantly lies to them about Banquo's role in their misery and strife, giving them a reason to kill the general. He absolves himself from all blame. Furthermore, he challenges their courage and their will to destroy those who had supposedly done them harm—in this instance, Banquo. They are easily convinced and swear revenge. Macbeth, just to make sure, reminds them that Fleance should also be killed.


Macbeth's cold-blooded statement at the end of the scene most potently indicates the depth and magnitude of his evil:



It is concluded. Banquo, thy soul's flight,
If it find heaven, must find it out to-night.



The once-honorable and -admired general has truly lost his way—the fair has become absolutely foul.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.