The Tragedy of Macbeth (Act 1)

I enjoy Shakespeare's writing style, though his tragedies can be very depressing (obviously). The speech in the plays is very elegant, and though the old English may take more time to interpret, I find it well worth the effort. He is usually very detailed in his writing, and his descriptions are very thorough. In Macbeth, specifically, he begins the play quickly with conversation. The plot advances rapidly from that point. Macbeth seems to have been written at a faster pace than, say, Frankenstein.

Thus far, Irish captains under king Duncan, Macbeth and Banquo, have defeated Norwegian rebels. The thane (lord) of Cawdor has been killed, and Duncan declares that Macbeth will be the new thane of Cawdor. Meanwhile, Macbeth and Banquo meet three witches, who say  Macbeth will be thane of Cawdor and later king, and that Banquo's children will be kings. Macbeth is then told by those under Duncan that he is now the thane of Cawdor, so he assumes - and desires - to be king. However, Duncan announces his eldest son as his successor. When Duncan comes to visit Macbeth at his castle, Lady Macbeth convinces her husband that they should kill the king.
As I mentioned, the plot seems to be progressing faster than some of Shakespeare's other works. Shakespeare already diffuses some suspense as to the truth of the three witches' words when Macbeth is declared thane of Cawdor. Yet, the majority of the action is yet to come, as this being a tragedy, we know that the murder of the king cannot bring good to Macbeth. Also, Shakespeare is subtle in the upset of Macbeth's plans, as the scene in which the king declares his son his successor is brief. The entire plot is ominous.

Plays offer a different type of characterization, as the only option is to use indirect characterization. Shakespeare uses dialogue to tell about the actions and traits of the characters, and I believe this gives the reader a more in-depth idea of the characters' personalities.
Macbeth apparently suffers a major personality change. He was a loyal and "valiant" captain, a seemingly close friend to Banquo, and described by his wife as being too kind. Yet when tempted with the possibility of power, he becomes greedy and violent.
Banquo seems to be a mild person, who is wise and cautious as portrayed by how he warns Macbeth not to trust the witches.
From the readers' perspective, King Duncan seems to be good-natured and a just king, but ignorant and too trusting. This may result from the fact that we know Macbeth's intentions, but he doesn't.
Lady Macbeth, from the first scene she appears in, is shown to be manipulative and selfish. She seems to have little guilt for evil acts. For a woman in that time period, Shakespeare gives her a surprising amount of power, because she was the one who first gave Macbeth the idea of killing the king and greatly influences his decisions.

The Night Thoreau Spent In Jail (Act 2)

I believe Henry's protest was a personal success, if not a public one. Though he did not accomplish the goal he had in mind, Henry maintained his morals and did not give in to society, and persevered. However, he was not influential enough to make people change their ways or end the Mexican War. In this sense, his protest was a failure.

There are a few examples of conversations in the book that contain irony. For instance, when Henry and Waldo Emerson are arguing, Waldo does not want to give his entire influence because he doesn't want to incite conflict. And yet, by not taking action, he is only allowing more violence, as Henry said, "I'll...leave you at peace with your war." Also, when Henry is speaking with Williams, Williams desires freedom, yet he likely will not find true freedom. Had he not been killed, he may have been free from most racism, but he would have been captured by society. He would have become trapped by the troubles of humankind. While Henry lives in poor conditions, he insists he has more. Lastly, when Thoreau speaks to Lydian, she seems to think that he is lonely because he doesn't love. In reality, he has learned to love almost everything, but she just cannot see it as it is deeper and different than most relationships she sees.

I believe the most important characters are Henry, Waldo Emerson, and Lydian. My list of actors is extremely limited - what can I say, I'm a PATH student. So, here goes. You may laugh, because I am.
I think Morgan Freeman could possibly play Henry. They both seem thoughtful and could be meditative (or could at least act like it). I think Morgan Freeman could portray someone who stands up for the underdog or unconventional ideas. Tom Selleck might play Waldo. They could be seen as the wise, trusted friend that one such as Henry would look to for advice. Both could make compelling speeches. However, as both are obviously both are not perfect, they may not always act on their words. Lydian could be played by Jane Seymour. Lydian seems sensible and cares about people, and I think Jane could portray that role. Also, she tries to guide Henry to a good, if more conformed, future, and I believe Jane could easily show her as wanting the best for people.

The Night Thoreau Spent In Jail (Act 1)

Henry's quote "The only people who get anyplace interesting are the people who get lost" could be related to Transcendentalism in the sense that it values individuality and can still be seen as everything being connected to God or a Universal Mind.
The phrase indicates that Henry believes that it is better to be inspired to make different decisions than the rest of society and follow an independent lifestyle than to conform. Henry could be saying that people should make their own choices based on their own personal opinion. It can also be connected to Transcendentalism in the idea that everyone's opinion or lifestyle can be a good one, if they are being true to themselves. He might mean that because everything and everyone is small parts of God, they are inherently correct in their ways, despite the choices they make. Based on Transcendentalism, the phrase might mean that everyone is connected to a Universal Mind, no matter what path they choose to take - that the love of God transcends the standards of society.

A Perfect Day for Bananafish

The characters in A Perfect Day for Bananafish had several similarities to the Catcher In the Rye.

Seymour Glass was a bit like Holden. They both see the world in a rather imaginative way, and sometimes seem to be taunting their peers with their actions and humor. They can both be disappointed by people who don't understand them, leading to depression. Also, neither of them are accepted by society due to their issues and odd personalities. However, Seymour seems even more out of touch with the world and has less control over himself than Holden.
Muriel reminded me of Sally. She is worldly and materialistic, seems to care about her image and popularity, and can be "phony" just like Sally. They both wanted a perfect - but unattainable - life. Sybil Carpenter was a little like Sally as well, but also a bit like Phoebe. She was honest and had a childish manner, but she was more petty and less understanding than Phoebe. Muriel's mother is can be compared to Holden's mother, as they both worry - often for good reason. Lastly, even the psychologist in the hotel was like Luce and his psychoanalyst father: both may be intellectual, but were unhelpful to the main characters.