I've always had a problem understanding stress in things like this. I really see no difference in the meaning based on what part you stress. I don't see an emotional impact either. One just seems more unnatural than the other. And, frankly, the 'blank verse' version seems *very* unnatural to me. I find it almost impossible to read that way.
Well, here of course we are confronting one of the great monologues. These are often
reveries by the character -- a way of expressing his thoughts to an audience. This is hard to do on stage (easier on film, as you can do close-ups -- did you ever see Death In Venice? Dirk Bogarde does more acting in the opening 5 minutes without ever saying a word!), in fact, it's impossible. So the actor says them out loud -- you get used to that, really.
This was referenced in an earlier post. And, again, I *guess* I can see how what he says fits, but I have no idea how to get that out of what is written. And, in the last part, when he actually performs it, I find the previous explanations rather lost in the verbiage. You said it was a conversation, but it seems more to me like it is an internal reverie of being sad.
Well, what he was talking about was really FOR actors, not for readers. This is how an actor prepares himself to BE the character when in front of an audience -- being aware of all those thoughts helps him express the character's thoughts more authentically, and this helps the audience to really understand what the character is feeling.
OK, and a bit more specific: why the word 'syllable'? I find it strangely off-putting. How is recorded time related to a syllable? I *think* I get the 'creeping' reference as related to the repetitiousness of time, but I'm not sure what to do with that. And that the 'last syllable' is just referring to the end of time, yes?
Elizabethans were more verbal than we are today. A person growing up in my decades was much more likely to read than to listen. So, if I want to break words down, I get down to letters, rather than syllables. But to a verbal audience, really the smallest part of a word is the syllable. So what he's trying to do is show time being broken down into little pieces, passing like the ticks of a clock.
This is all merely poetic allusion. Remember, an actor is standing on a stage with no moving pictures in the background, so the conveyance of nuance, shape, shadow and so forth is not readily expressible -- except in the word pictures that playwrite draws for us.
Come to think about it, this seems to say more about being bored than being sad: the repetitiousness and the pettiness of the place push in that direction. Which makes the whole thing seem very strange in context.
Well, in a sense you are quite right. Macbeth knows that he is going to face a fight just about immediately, and his hopes have been dashed by having the "prophecy" of the witches in Act One shown to be full of false hope -- so he also pretty much knows that he is going to die.
If that's the case, then I think we can read it that he is also feeling a bit "let's just get on with it, get it over with" sort of emotion.
And I think it's interesting that you picked up on that -- showing that it really is "built into" the language.
