Violence In Macbeth And Nineteen Eighty-Four

Authors William Shakespeare and George Orwell are considered to be some of the best authors that have been. One of Shakespeare’s greatest plays he wrote was the play of Macbeth, with Orwell writing the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. Although both these books appear to have much in common, the quite obvious similarity is the use of violence that both authors have portrayed. They use this violence to connect with their reader’s beliefs and values in terms of who bears responsibility for it as well as its justification and social price. Both Shakespeare and Orwell portray this violence through political, psychological, and physical aspects of the novels.

Throughout both novels of Macbeth and Nineteen Eighty-Four, political violence plays a large

Shakespeare uses an excessive amount of violence in his novel in terms of murder. This violence, especially through the character of Macbeth, shows his power and dominance throughout North Scotland. This violence in shown, particularly through the many murders that occur. However, the suicide of Lady Macbeth in Macbeth is very much similar to that in Nineteen Eighty-Four, where although Winston did not kill himself, he had been contemplating it. Through this Orwell is trying to show that with such control and restriction on his life, he would rather die than fight his way out. The responsibility for this physical violence that occurs in Macbeth, again lies heavily on Macbeth, Lady Macbeth and the three witches. As for Nineteen Eighty-Four, it is unreasonable to ask a society to give up their freedom without having a few are going to rebel, such as Winston and Julia, therefore leaving the responsibility on Big Brother and The Party. The social price that is associated with physical violence that has been portrayed by each author, is with the physical torture that was endured, it is evidently going to led to severe psychological issues, resulting in many lives being damaged. Everyone is brought up to believe that violence never solves anything, and this is how both authors have connected with their audiences. The extensive use of violence emphasises this reasoning and allows the