Macbeth_the_Third_Murderer__by_Jane_Jiang

MACBETH as the Third MURDERER: By: Jane Jiang PART A: Goddard was trying to convince us that Macbeth was the Third murderer. He stated very good points but other analysis also conflicted with some of his points. His most compelling arguments building the case for Macbeth as the Third Murderer were when he stated the first murderer, disturbed asks who bade him to join them, and his Delphic answer is: Macbeth. This would mean the two other murders weren’t expecting Macbeth to come since Macbeth was the one who sent them to kill Banquo. Also, the sixth argument “there’s but one down; the son is fled.” Mainly on this speech it’s the proof that Macbeth may have been the Third Murderer. They say that the news of Fleance’s escape came to him as a surprise. But others think the lines have the same marks of insincerity combined with unconscious truth as those in which Macbeth pretended to be confused like when he was confronted about Duncan’s death. His weak arguments were 3rd and 4th; these are weak arguments because they are ignorant assumptions. Both the arguments are very similar, in fact the fourth speech confirms the third speech. They are weak because they are referring to the punctuations and grammar of the speech. In argument 3, Goddard expresses that dashes, in place of the more usual commas, revealed the Third Murderer’s part and in circumstances when, realizing the mistake of killing Banquo, he said “so all men do” plainly. Argument 4 also had the same analysis that confirms the use of grammar and pronouns. It’s too hard to tell someone’s thoughts by the use of punctuations and grammar. PART B: Dear Mr. Goddard, I apologize but I do not believe your analysis of “Macbeth as the Third Murder”. You had a couple compelling arguments that were convincing but I am afraid I’m going to stick to my analysis. I strongly don’t believe that Macbeth was the Third Murder of Banquo. Firstly, Macbeth and Banquo had a good friendship they fought at war together. They must have developed a bond; I don’t think Macbeth’s character could have the audacity to kill a royal friend. This may argued because Macbeth did indeed, murder Duncan but looking at it in a different prospective. Macbeth and Banquo probably spent more time together than Macbeth and Duncan; this would make it harder for Macbeth to murder his friend. Also, it wasn’t easy for Macbeth, he was very doubtful when it came to killing Duncan. So, Macbeth needed the deed to be done by someone other than himself. Secondly, Macbeth was paranoid about the deed not being done and he was also at the party at the time of murder. If Macbeth was actually the murderer then why would he be so paranoid about it deed not being finished' Macbeth seems like a character that gets things done. Macbeth wouldn’t have been so paranoid if he did kill him himself. Lastly, I think that the Third Murderer was the third witch because she is the prophet of destiny, and if she wasn’t there to put out the light, Fleance would have died too, and there will be no James Scott Kind of Scotland. When she says "Who put out the light'" it's like any criminal first blurting that out, to move suspicion away from her and onto someone else, probably weaker and fumbling. The funny thing is that she was not there to kill Banquo, but to save Fleance, thereby fulfilling her prophecy. These are the reasons I don’t think Macbeth was the Third Murderer.