As promised, here is a place to play with the topic of the final essay. Shakespearean scholars still debate if Romeo is a pawn of fortune or a victim of his own tragic flaws (just pick one of the many!)
So, which is it? Don't forget to provide support. Your ideas may change as we proceed further in the play.
31 comments:
I think it is fate, but only because of the prologue. There is much more evidence pointing towards tragedy. Romeo is of noble birth, has many tragic flaws (impulsive or whimsicle) and then has his boom boom holy crap moment. For the essay on the final I think I am going to say its a play of tragedy because there are more concrete details.
I agree that it is tragedy. Oedipus was a tragic hero and fate played a large role in his tragedy. Therefore, Romeo and Juliet can still have fate play a role in their tragedy.
I feel that it is both in the way of the fates and tragedy. It is Romeo and Juliets fate for their lives to end in tragedy.It could go either way. But I am leading more toward the fate side. Even though I think its fate, there are not that many concrete details about fate, so the better essay would come from saying its a tragedy.
Yeah i agree with Kathleen. I think the fates play a role in making it a tragedy.
I think it is definitely a tragedy because that is what Shakespeare intended it to be and it is in the name of the play. I also agree that fate plays a role in tragedy because without it, no one would have that tragic destiny.
I think it's fate, because I don't find any of it tragic at all. But, because of the title and what it is really intended to be, I'd say it's a tragedy. Romeo's tragic flaw could be that he's creepy, or just that he's whimsical, or impulsive, or fickle.
romeo is the tragic hero because he is of noble birth, he has a tragc flaw (he is mercurial) and he has a tragic downfall (when he is banished because of the fight with Tybalt)
I see how people think it goes both ways. However, it is a persuesive essay, therefore you have to choose one side and back it up. In my eyes, I see it to be fate. I know Shakespeare intends it to be a tragedy but it doesn't come across that way to me. I feel that you can't say it was Romeo's tragic flaw that caused things like Friar John entering the town with the plague; that just doesn't make sense to me. I am probably making it harder for myself doing it on fate, because everyone seems to be going the other way, but, whatever.
I agree with Katie, it is fate all the way. The prologue says it and in every good moment and unexpected, uncontrolled force screws up the happy ending for the couple. The Gods were messing with their lives and they couldn't prevent it. Fate is the hands down answer
i get how people think that it is fate, but the arguements for fate can also be used in the arguements for tragedy. for example, with the timing of juliet waking up and romeo killing himself, that could have been his impulsiveness too b/c as soon as he realizes that she is 'dead' he kills himself. also, with the timing of friar john and balthasar, none of that would have happened if it weren't for romeo's hotheadedness when he killed tybalt b/c then he wouldn't have been banished and no letters would have to be sent to inform him of what Juliet and the Friar planned. all this started with his impulsiveness in wanting juliet as soon as he saw her based on her looks. therefore, it is tragedy.
I think that it is a tragedy. The prologue calls them a pair of star crossed lovers-fate does not make them star crossed lovers Romeo flaws do. if Romeo was not hot headed and impulsive then he would not have killed himself and Juliet, Tybalt, Paris and Lady Montague would still be alive. According to Aristotle definition of tragedy, Romeo and Juliet is defiantly a tragedy.
Well, in my opinion this is a tragedy. every thing that fate did could have been aviodid if Romeo was not so fickle, impuslive etc. For example if Romeo had not rushed to juliet's grave when balthasar gave him misinformation, and had just gone to Frair Laurence to see what happened, the tragedy could have been avoided. If Romeo had taken Frair Laurence's advise and slowed down their marriage, the tragedy probably would have been avoided. If Romeo had just waited for the law to kill tybalt he would not be banished, and the tragedy could have been avoided. Also as other people stated fate played a huge role in Oedipus and that is Tragedy. The title even says it is a tragedy. Romeo takes this marrige way too fast. He meets Juliet and then marry's her only about 14 hours Later!! Romeo is to too impulsive for this not to be a tragedy.
Although Romeo does have his flaws, there are many more instnaces in the story where he could not have done anyhting, it was out of his hands. Things like Tyblat killing Mercutio, Capulet forcing the marriage and then changing it, and even when Romeo's right hand man gives Romeo false iformation. The prolouge even says that Romeo & Juluet are star-crossed lovers.
Is the essay based on a 8 sentence paragraph format?
Raj, yeah the body paragraphs have to be in 8 sentence format...
What should the grabber discuss if I am defending that the play is a tragedy?
I think it's fate now because not everything can be based on Romeo's tragic flaws (sure he's a sissy, but not everything is his fault). One thing that caused a lot of the problems was the feud between the Montague's and the Capulet's. Romeo had nothing to do with starting that fight and that played a huge part in his and Juliet's life. If it hadn't been for that they might not've died, except it was fate.
Caitlin, since we have to introduce our opinion in the Annotate I think we should have the grabber discussing both sides of the play. I'm not completely sure on this topic, so I'd wait for Miss Arney...
Hey, gang...the answers to the words to know are up on the website...
http://www.prhs.k12.ny.us/fac/arneyd/answers_to_words_to_remember_in_.htm
The grabber could be a comment on Aristotle's definition of a tragedy...
if we are doing the essay on fate, what is the first paragraph on? also tragedy or is it something different?
what about star-crossed lovers then?
so we wouldnt need to define tragedy? or would that be in the second paragraph?
You should still be defining a tragedy in the intro since that is the basis of this essay (did Shakespeare give this a proper title)
ok thank you. i guess i'll start out explaining star-crossed lovers and then describe tragedy when i link to romeo and juliet.
Maria, OR you can just maintain a discussion on tragedy throughout....
...and argue that R&J isn't a tragedy?
exactly
OH! so I could say something about the way Aristotle's definition of tragedy is interpreted and then go on to explain and link that to Romeo and Juliet and further explaining the definition of tragedy?
thank you so much! is it okay if i still mention star-crossed lovers in the intro or even use it somewhat as a grabber? or should the grabber be an interpretation of the definition of tragedy?
I agree with Jared, this is definetly a tragedy. If Romeo had not married Juliet right away, had waited for Tybalt to be killed by the Prince, and had gone to Friar Lawrence after hearing the untrue information from Balthasar, then this would not have happened.
Whether or not Balthasar uncovered the untrue information or not the result of the lives of the two lovers would still have been death. No matter what actions Romeo took this was their destiny and like Oedipus, one cannot control his or her fate!
Post a Comment