ARGUMENTS
III
the level of ... ultra-rightist tracts . . . and it would not be worth
reading, let alone reviewing. But I don't so take it...." But if the
eponymous villain murders John Ken O 'Dunc, this is a
fact- and
not at
all an implication to be taken or dropped. Macdonald wants the fact
to not be a fact. He writes : "An author who would build a satire on
such an insinuation
[sic
J
for which no shred of evidence exists save in the
addled wits of crackbrains [note how strong Macdonald wants to be on
this point] couldn't possibly have written anything as funny as
MacBird,
humor being incompatible with solipsistic fanaticism. . . ." Now if
Macdonald had taken the trouble to note who the publishers of
M acBird
are, I think he would not be so sure that the author is not a solipsistic
fanatic. As for humor in
MacBird,
I happen to think there is not one
real good laugh in it. But let's suppose there are more laughs than I
got-doesn't Macdonald remember that there have been humorists,
great ones, who were mad? Macdonald argues that while there are
parallels between the assassinations of Ken O'Dunc and Kennedy, these
could not have been intended by
MacBird' s
author, who was simply
casting about for a Shakespearean work on which to base a modern
political burlesque: ". . . having picked
Macb eth
as the Shakespearean
play that best lent itself to topical satire, she was stuck with the plot
line...." Just imagine being stuck with the plot line of
Macbeth!
For
my part, I think the whole play an extension of the joke which by this
time must have been uttered in every major city of this country. Ques–
tion: Who killed John F. Kennedy? Answer: Lady Bird Macbeth.
Here is Macdonald once again on Miss Garson, the author of
MacBird;
"...
while she could (and did) make some changes, the
central dramatic action, :Macbeth's murder of Duncan, couldn't have
been omitted. . .. How onerous she found this necessity I don' t know,
but it seems clear to me that she constantly signals that it is a mere
plot necessity ... whenever The Problem arises." What seems clear to
Macdonald is not at all clear to me. Does Miss Garson signal to her
readers that they are to disregard, or to regard, the implications of the
plot she, according to Macdonald, accidentally found herself using?
Here is Lady MacBird after having received a letter from the Vice-Presi–
dent announcing the witches' prophecy:
All hail MacBird, the President to be!
And yet I fear you're not direct enough.
The naked act would scandalize your eye.
You're not without ambition, but you lack
The forthrightness to face your own desire.
