Forum: Author Hangout

Yes, probably a lot of influences involved, but the analysis want comparing to modern works. It compared Macbeth to Shakespeare's other works. Really interesting. And the other examples are worth the clock over to look at. Language. So powerful, so subtle.

It compared Macbeth to Shakespeare's other works.

It's worth noting here that Macbeth was probably intended to be creepy. It's not a happily every after kind of story.

Exactly! And the genius is how he managed that with an ultra-subtle shift in language. Intended? Unconscious? Unconscious until he noticed it, then he went with it consciously? No real answer, but interesting for those of us who think about what separates great writing from mediocre.

Pixy, this is one time I'm going to go with the thought that this might be a real insight. Again, this isn't about comparing Shakespeare's use of language to modern usage. It's Shakespeare to Shakespeare -- a much more useful and intriguing analysis.

More that the overabundance of "the" in Macbeth is known, some steps thinking about what might have influenced Shakespeare to write that way can be done. Some might be cultural tropes, some copying language. I seriously don't that kind of subtle effect was conscious; it seems more a product of the unconscious mind to me, the past of the brain that seems able to discern patterns much faster than mind. (A search for "the Iowa gambling test" will turn up examples of this research. We do things reliably and we'll that we don't consciously understand. I would put my money on Shakespeare just putting himself in am "eerie" mindset and this is what genius produced.

Also interesting that this shows up on reading aloud, something that has also been a topic on this forum.

Remus2, if you read the linked post, I would be interested in how the study stries you. It's a large scale statistical study of a complete work compared to the large set of Shakespeare's plays. The line-by-line were just examples of the insight that came out of the statistical study. As a general point, I am on your side about most of what I have seen of "literary analysis."

The line-by-line were just examples of the insight that came out of the statistical study.

I looked at the article. Two of the three specific examples they call out as odd can likely be explained as references to Christian or Celtic mythology.

"the owl" and "the serpent" are not references to what are supposed to be singular living creatures within the story, but to mythological figures.

"the owl" I explained above. "The serpent" is likely a reference to the serpent in the garden of Eden.

Dominions Son, I suppose it is possible that the extreme overuse of "the" in Macbeth is explained by pervasive use of Christian and Celtic mythology. I got to admit that I haven't read the underlying paper, so can't say whether it addresses that point. If so, I would think less computational forms of literary analysis would have made that point many years ago. I get a hint that that's not the case from the post I linked, but, perhaps what you suggest for these two examples is sufficient to explain the larger phenomenon. I tend to think not, but, can't say for sure. If so, it still seems a striking result. Lots of authors have written heavily mythological works that haven't evoked the widespread feeling of eeriness in actors and critics that seems to be the case for this work by Shakespeare.

I suppose it is possible that the extreme overuse of "the" in Macbeth is explained by pervasive use of Christian and Celtic mythology

I wasn't referring to the general over use of "the" just those three examples that they chose to call out as particularly odd.

Simply put, "the owl" and "the serpent" are not even the tiniest bit odd in the context of the relevant mythologies as they are references to singular mythological figures.

Those two examples are stunningly poor examples of the overuse of "the" in Macbeth given the likelihood that they are mythological references.

Who would have thought 'The owl and the pussycat' was intended to induce feelings of horror ;-)

Different context and not likely to be a mythological reference, or at least not the same one Shakespeare was using in Macbeth.

Well, cow-cakes falling from lunar altitude will achieve truly horrific spatter on landing...

Well, cow-cakes falling from lunar altitude will achieve truly horrific spatter on landing...

Not really, they would make very brief but brilliant flaming cow-cakes on re-entry. Which begs the question, why were the cow-cakes sent to the moon to start with? Or was this incontinence on the part of the cow that jumped over the moon?

AJ, I don't know if "intended" is the right way to look at this, although maybe it is. I sincerely doubt Shakespeare ever consciously decided, "I will overuse 'the' to create eery feelings when this play is read aloud." And the effect may be due not to any one instance, but to a pattern that the pattern-recognition capabilities of our unconscious mind respond to without it ever reaching conscious awareness.

I looked at the article. Two of the three specific examples they call out as odd can likely be explained as references to Christian or Celtic mythology.

"the owl" and "the serpent" are not references to what are supposed to be singular living creatures within the story, but to mythological figures.

"the owl" I explained above. "The serpent" is likely a reference to the serpent in the garden of Eden.

But in an odd twist, and roundabout why, it still ends up agreeing with the premise of the Analysis, just maybe not how they intended.

"The owl" is supposed to be understood as a reference to a mythological/mystical creature.

"The serpent" is much the same.

Something they should know and understand, but they don't because the cultural reference is no longer valid today. But thanks to its phrasing, we're still able to detect that those things were evidently significant, even if they don't know why it is.

And for a play working in elements of the supernatural, that's not a bad thing.

The study strikes me as missing the obvious.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Waves/opecol.html
Looking at the numbers only, made my mind jump to resonance patterns. Humans recognize patterns innately. I think maybe the people creeped out by it recognize the patterns pointed out by the study. Not so much the specific words. There are patterns in life that represent danger. Specifics of sound and other vibrations. The specifics of fire to sight that is out of control. The rattle of a rattle snake. If the words can be metered to illicit the dangerous patterns, the mind of the reader may be influenced to feel a sense of danger.
That is off the top of my head. Maybe wrong maybe right.

I agree about the subconscious recognition of patterns. And, if so, that seems crazy hard to do, which helps explain Shakespeare's exalted position in the world of English writers.

I agree about the subconscious recognition of patterns. And, if so, that seems crazy hard to do, which helps explain Shakespeare's exalted position in the world of English writers.

Storytelling has a very long history of using patterns to tell a story. Long before the written word, storytelling was used to pass on history and myths. Many of those myths became myths due to a bards/storytelling ability. Shakespeare put them to the written word. Probably not as hard for him to do in that era as it would be now.

However, I think you're overthinking the meaning of each use of his repetitive "the"s.

Not me! I have NOT re-read Macbeth to see if I see this in the language, nor to pick out what I think are be best examples. The statistical part of this analysis is interesting to me, mostly because it highlights a deviation in Shakespeare's standard approach in a play that has also been identified as "different" by those with close contact with his works. But, apparently from most of the comments, many don't see in the examples anything to back up the analysis. Oh, well. Next!

But, apparently from most of the comments, many don't see in the examples anything to back up the analysis. Oh, well. Next!

The statistical speaks for itself.

But yeah, they didn't do a great job of pulling out prime examples. If I didn't have to sign up with them to comment, I'd put that comment on their article.