Skip to main content

In Shakespeare's Macbeth, why is Macduff's plan effective?

I assume you are referring to Macduff's plan to leave Scotland at his earliest convenience and seek assistance for Macbeth's overthrow.


The plan is effective in the sense that firstly, Macduff, in leaving in such a hurry, denies Macbeth the opportunity to assassinate him as he had done with Banquo. Macbeth has been aware of Macduff's sentiments and knows where his loyalties lie and wants him dead. In fact, the murderers who kill Macduff's entire family come looking for him for, on their arrival, the first murderer asks Lady Macduff, "Where is your husband?"


The murder of Macduff's entire family and his servants indicates how ruthless and bloodthirsty the tyrant has become. With his rushed escape Macduff had, essentially, abandoned his family and left them vulnerable and open to Macbeth's malice. In this regard, the plan was not entirely effective. In his defense, though, one can argue that he had no choice but to leave. If he had tarried, he would have been killed as well. His escape ensured that he would be able to acquire support for what has become a desperate cause—the survival of his beloved Scotland.


Macduff meets up with Malcolm in England, where he is informed that Edward, the English king, has promised support for their cause in the form of "goodly thousands"—experienced and battle-hardened soldiers. Macduff also later learns that Siward, "with ten thousand warlike men, / Already at a point, was setting forth."


He and Malcolm eventually meet up with the troops as they approach Macbeth's castle from Birnam wood. They later overrun his castle, and Macduff is brought face to face with the evil tyrant. He kills him in a sword fight and decapitates him. The bloody tyrant has come to an ignominious end, and Macduff has had his revenge.

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.