Talk:Macduff (Macbeth)

Caesarian/No Caesarian
I'm wondering what the reasoning was behind the change indicating Macduff wasn't born by C-section. Everything I've ever read on the subject indicates that is the meaning of the "untimely ripped" line. C-sections in the 11th century, to my knowledge, were invariably fatal to the mother, if she wasn't already dead, which perfectly justifies "ripped" as a descriptor. I don't want to get into an edit war on the subject, so I'd appreciate it if we could discuss it.Lilitou 15:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No edit war necessary. I've reverted it.  I made the original change, but subsequent investigation has shown me to be wrong, so it's back to its previous status. Monkeyzpop 17:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay. Thanks! Lilitou 17:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Castle
The section beginning "It is thought that a castle may have been built here" doesn't appear to belong in this article. Was it meant for the Banff and Macduff article? Lilitou 15:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

How many scenes
The opening paragraph of "Macduff's Parallelism to Other Characters in the Play" contradicts itself in regard to how many scenes the character appears in. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

historical macduff?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormaer_of_Fife 67.176.160.47 (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

inaccuracies
Some key assertions in this article are inaccurate and need to be corrected:

On "announcing deaths" ("Then, he announces the death of his own family. Finally, he announces the deaths of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth.")

In fact, Rosse first announces the death of Macduff's family; Seyton first announces the death of Lady Macbeth.

Others are just odd or misleading:

"This role makes him the fourth most important character in Macbeth after Macbeth, Lady Macbeth and Duncan."

This seems a peculiar evaluation (important according to what criteria?) and not particularly illuminating.

The discussion of the "England scene", 4.3, needs some work as well. UltimateCoach (talk) 03:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Original research: excision of femininity
While it is obvious that the main female characters in Macbeth are portrayed negatively, it is a huge leap to say in the article that the play’s intention is the “excision of femininity,” and to then follow that up with an entire section claiming that “femininity is to be feared reviled.” This would a stronger claim it it were supported by more than one citation. It’s hardly surprising that this has been marked as original research (and subsequently ignored) since 2011.

To clarify: I am not suggesting that the claim is totally unfounded, but it is a controversial claim that could do with more convincing scholarly support. If nobody objects in a reasonable time, I would be inclined to edit it out.

Jmegawarne (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the citation is not even indicated after the assertion "Macduff ultimately originates from woman" which seems like OR. Further, it is meaningless because Macbeth also "ultimately originates from woman". The point of the "tricky" prophecy of the witches is that a corpse is not a woman (nor a man), thus being born from it is beyond an ordinary status. I cut the paragraph in question. If someone wants to revert, please clean up the "ultimately originates" claim with better explanation and a direct quote from cited reference. Martindo (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)