My daughters were visiting this weekend and I asked them what they thought about the premise. I am assured by my middle daughter Bridget (Minor in Women’s Studies) that any possible negative aspect concerning manipulation is a “masculine” attribute, not one fairly associated with women qua women. I don’t agree that manipulation is a definitively masculine trait-in fact, I may more associate the trait with female literary characters more than male (admittedly written predominantly by men)-cherche la femme. My youngest daughter was very quick to add that to be manipulative requires intelligence and men are not as smart as women to be as good at manipulation. (Katie says, “You may quote me on that.”) A fair accounting required me to ask my eldest daughter-the English major and the first of the three to have read “Macbeth for Kids.” Christine thinks that the play Macbeth is more about what happens to Macbeth than about who is Macbeth. She describes it as more angst than agency. Macbeth struts and frets his way through the play reacting and responding rather than (willingly) taking the reins-not at all conducive to one who reigns.

While I’m tripping down memory lane, here’s a true story: When reading Macbeth in high school, Ms. Krogstadt asked the inevitable question, “What is Macbeth’s tragic flaw?” The first answer was “He’s too dependent on his

conscience.” With characteristic patience, Ms. Krogstadt noted that having a conscience would generally not fit the description of a tragic flaw. The second answer was “He’s too easily manipulated.” Closer, but not quite there. We weren’t (all that) stupid-boys or girls. We got to “ambition” quickly enough and moved on. So, allow me to move on.

Macbeth is a profoundly weak person outside of the battlefield. When he is not being badgered into murder by his wife, he’s being misled to the point of lunacy by three hags. I would aver that’s quintessential manipulation. All the while he’s seemingly ambitious (His ambition is only self-described: “To prick the sides of my intent, but only vaulting ambition.” I. VII.) while cognizant of his weaknesses, his insecurity, and his guilt. He goes from a highly respected tough guy (pre-play) to a philosopher by the last act: “Life’s but a walking shadow; a poor player…” Maybe I’d go back and argue that Macbeth is more about angst than agency-that his tragic flaw is that he is too easily manipulated. Macbeth is back on his game toward the end of the play. When he is again in battle (his element) he goes full bore-into his military masculinity “I’ll fight, till from my bones my flesh be hackt.” V.III; “…At least we’ll die with harness on our back.” V.V., he doesn’t seem to recognize how abhorrent he has been throughout: “I dare do all that may become a man, Who dares do more is none.” I.VII. Serial murder does not become a man.

Malcolm and Donalbain are each a bit cowardly-running out of the country when the going gets tough. Macduff shows some sense of completeness—a decent enough man, both in strength and sensitivity “But I must also feel it as a man.” His “only” flaw was leaving his family exposed to a horrible end. Thanks, Dad! Malcolm recovers to an extent, closing the play with a semblance of leadership by “setting things right” which may be more form than substance. It is assumed that Duncan was a good king, thus a good man I guess. Aside from him, there is a notable dearth of positive masculinity in the play.