Macbeth

The Tragedy of Macbeth by William Shakespeare raises more complex questions than the previous stories investigated. The possible answers for the three main viewpoints aren't as clear, and it points up a weakness of the Four Stories as described so far.

Setting, at least, is obvious: like King Lear, Macbeth actions destroy King and country, invite invaders, and cause total war. It's Crisis time. 

Characters like Macbeth and his wife that are morally ambiguous or outright bad - what I've started calling mal - are Nomads often enough that 's easy to start with that and see where it leads. For the first few scenes of Macbeth, though, even knowing where things are going, this looks like an exception. Macbeth is called "noble," he has helped his king eliminate a traitor, and is being granted a grander title by this grateful sovereign.

Maybe he's not a bad guy.

Then, in the third scene, the witches tell him that he will be king.  Almost the first thing that comes to mind is "I could do it by killing King Duncan."  

Which doesn't mean the question is answered, or going to be answered with other options.  The generational attributes end up all over the place. Macbeth is ruthless but not  principled, pecuniary (insofar as the crown has inherent wealth) and practical,  indecisive and arguably neurotic.  On balance he does seem like a Nomad, although one could push the characterization in any direction. Which might explain why it is popular, if any generation can show the lessons they prefer to see:

• Artists: Fate can't be avoided; 
• Nomads: Evil is repaid, no matter how certain you are of success; 
• Prophets: Beware of ambition, or careful what you wish for;
• Heroes: Even a tyrant can fall to the strength of the team.  

This leaves little choice but to look at the Story, and the observation that the Four Stories have a bias towards uplifting results, of triumph over different sorts of adversity. Only the Artist story of Doom and Damnation is intrinsically tragic. (Which isn't the same as being a tragedy - Annie Hall, Doctor Strangelove, and The Producers all work as comedies and also as Artist stories.) Artist generations certainly aren't the only ones with tragedy in their lives. Still, their narratives seem to have this tendency. Since Macbeth is a tragedy, seeing it as an Artist story of Doomed and Damned is tempting. The problem is that the end result is triumphant in its way - the unequivocal bad guy is taken down. If we see the main character as Nomad, it would make sense for him to have a Redemption, but clearly that doesn't happen.  What does that leave?

Aristotle saw Tragedy as involving a tragic flaw that the main character is unable to avoid. In the generational view, people cannot escape the circumstances of birth. They get laden down with the events they experience, and the attitudes of adults during youth. What if that's the same, that tragic flaws are inherent in the same way? Then tragedy could be seen as either a) negative attributes that drag people down or b) positive attributes that are insufficient for salvation. Indeed, people can be dragged down by positive attributes as well, as Lear's desire for peace and fairness leads to his downfall. In general, then, tragedy becomes a reversal of the usual story,  happening through the failure of these fundamental attributes.

If this works, then what happens with Macbeth? His flaw seems to be a willingness to do bad things in order to improve his own situation. Trying to be practical leads him to additional murder, but doesn't set him on the path. If he'd stopped trying to fix things, though, there might not have been an opposition for Macduff to rally against him. In any case, it seems like an anti-Nomad story, where amorality and pragmatism lead the tragic figure to his inevitable end. Which further suggests that other generations have their own anti-stories, as well.