English 241:  Shakespeare's Plays

ROMEO AND JULIET PAPER GUIDE

The following paper guide displays major paper problems followed by solutions and suggested
revisions:


PROBLEM 1: THE FOLLOWING PAPER EXCERPT DOESN'T FOCUS ON A CENTRAL IDEA THAT IT CAN THEN DEVELOP WITH EXAMPLES; THEREFORE, THE PARAGRAPHS RAMBLE:

Those of us who believe in fate could say that it was merely unfortunate destiny that was responsible for the deaths of Romeo and Juliet. A power or force held to predetermine events that are going to happen no matter what. For others though, that idea is not convincing enough. So we look to the major and minor flaws of the play for a better understanding. Could it have been
unfortunate accidents? Or differences in character personalities? Or simply lack of communication throughout the play? I do not believe that it was any one of these, but that it was a combination of them all working together that lead to Romeo and Juliet's tragic deaths.

At the beginning of the play we see an ongoing feud between two families that engulfed the entire city of Verona and made it so that there was constant tension. This gives us insight to the continuous conflict that will persist throughout the play. Nearly every character in the play had a flaw or action that could have contributed to Romeo and Juliet's death. . .

SOLUTION 1: PLAN/OUTLINE YOUR PAPER AND FOLLOW IT AS YOUR WRITE THE FINAL DRAFT:

Thesis: The major causes for the deaths of Romeo and Juliet were flaws in the main characters and the problems that these flaws caused for the young lovers:

1) Too many people in this play wish to continue to fight a feud whose origin is forgotten:

A) Discuss the family feud, showing how it is depicted in the opening scene, making the point that this feud creates an atmosphere that forces Romeo and Juliet to meet in secret;


REVISION 1:

Those of us who believe in fate could say that it was merely unfortunate destiny that was responsible for the deaths of Romeo and Juliet. For others such as myself, this idea is simply not convincing enough. Rather, the major causes for the deaths of Romeo and Juliet lie in flaws in the characters and the effects of these flaws on Romeo and Juliet (Thesis).

Reading this play for the first time, I was shocked at how many of its characters wish to continue fighting a feud whose origin is forgotten (1st Main Point). At the very opening of the play, for example, servants of the Capulet household start a fight with servants of the Montagues. Taunting Abram of the house of Montague with an obscene gesture ("Do you bite you thumb at us, sir?"), Sampson starts a fight that will eventually involve not only other family members but eventually almost the whole city.


PROBLEM 2: THE FOLLOWING INTRODUCTIONS ARE UNCLEAR OR RAMBLING:  IN NEITHER IS THE CENTRAL IDEA OF THE PAPER MADE CLEAR.

By the end the two star-crossed lovers of Romeo and Juliet are dead. The three major flaws or decencies; pride, violence, and communication could be the foundation to several minor flaws in the existing characters, their relations with each other, and the
environment of this play, that would account for the tragic deaths of the two lovers Romeo and Juliet.

Romeo and Juliet, written by William Shakespeare, is a fiction about a tragic Platonic love. I think Shakespeare really likes and enjoys making serious conflicts, matters, and difficult situations. In this tragic play, all the flaws that caused the problems are the author's intention or his purpose to create such a tragedy. It is not the "stars" or the fate that account for the deaths of Romeo and Juliet, but the play itself that reveals the author's motives to create conflicts. The major flaws that account for the
tragic deaths of Romeo and Juliet are the family feud between Capulet and Montague, and the lack of communication between the major characters. These flaws eventually bring a blindness that causes problems after problems. Also, these deficiencies are Shakespeare's scheme to make this play fascinating and moving.

REVISION 2: BY CONTRAST, THE FOLLOWING TWO INTRODUCTIONS ARE CONCISE AND GET TO THEIR CENTRAL IDEA CLEARLY AND QUICKLY:

By the end of Romeo and Juliet, the two star-crossed lovers are dead. A number of flaws contributed to their deaths, but the major ones were individual pride and arrogance, violence that pervaded Verona, and lack of communication between family members.

At the beginning of Romeo and Juliet, the two young lovers fall in love at the Capulet ball, court each other in the moonlight, and are married the next day. And yet, by the end of the play, Romeo and Juliet are dead; the only cold comfort is that their deaths have brought about what the Prince calls "a glooming peace" to their two families. But who or what is responsible for their deaths? It is not the "stars" or fate that brought about this play's tragic ending, but personal flaws that brought about the play's tragic ending.

PROBLEM 3: THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH SIMPLY STICKS IN A QUOTE RATHER THAN USING IT TO DEVELOP A POINT:

To start with, Romeo was a mooning adolescent who was fickle when it came to the girls he fell in love with. When he was first in love with Rosaline he walked through the streets mooning over her, and he would often sit under a tree west of the city thinking of her. An example of his attitude about love is in (1.1.171-183).

Alas that love, whose view is muffled still,
Should without eyes see pathways to his will!
Where shall we dine? O me! What fray was here?
Yet tell me not, for I have heard it all.
Here's much to do with hate, but more with love.
Why then, O brawling love, O loving hate,
O anything, of nothing first create!
This love feel I, that feel no love in this.
Dost thou not laugh?

SOLUTION 3: THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH INCLUDES JUST ENOUGH OF THE QUOTATION TO SUPPORT ITS POINT.

To start with, Romeo was a mooning adolescent who was fickle when it came to the girls he fell in love with. When he was first in love with Rosaline he walked through the streets mooning over her, and he would often sit under a tree west of the city thinking of her. Like any mooning adolescent, Romeo exaggerates his feelings, calling out "alas" and "O me" to his friend Benvolio, then in the next breath asking "where shall we dine," and in the next bemoaning the "brawling love . . . loving hate" that he sees everywhere (1.1.174). . . .


PROBLEM 4: THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH GRADUALLY DRIFTS OUT OF FOCUS:

Shakespeare begins the play with one of the most major flaws, violence. He opens the play with the servants of the two households, the Capulets and the Montagues, taunting and fighting with each other over their name. Was it that the servants, or was it that the whole atmosphere of the town of Verona, itself was violent? The townsfolk themselves blood-thirsty to see a fight, and a prince that lacks authority to prevent it from happening. Until he exiles Romeo for the death of Tybalt, after Tybalt slain Mercutio. It has been said throughout time that it is in human nature to be violent.


SOLUTION 4: STATE TOPIC AND SUBTOPIC SENTENCES PRECISELY AND THEN DEVELOP THEM WITH EXAMPLES:

The major flaw that contributed to the deaths of Romeo and Juliet was a love of violence: Violence pervades the city, plagues the Capulet and Montague families, and ultimately causes the deaths of Mercutio and Tybalt. At the very beginning of the play, for instance, violence threatens to engulf the whole city of Verona. Sampson, a servant of the Capulets, starts a fight with Abram, a Montague servant, by obscenely biting his thumb at him.   Then, when Benvolio, a Montague, tries to break them up, Tybalt, a Capulet, enters, draws his sword, and expressing his hatred for "all Montagues, and thee," demands that Benvolio "look upon thy death" (1.1.63-8). With that, shouting "Strike! Beat them down! Down with the Capulets! Down with the Montagues (1.1.70-3), other citizens rush to enter the fight.

As if to emphasize the fact that the violence stems from the Capulet and Montague family feud, it is the heads of the two families who now join in the fight. . . .


PROBLEM 5: IN THE FOLLOWING SENTENCES PAIRS, THE FIRST SENTENCE IS EXPRESSED IN AN IMPRECISE, UNNATURAL, OR AWKWARD STYLE; THE SECOND CORRECTS THE PROBLEM THROUGH THE USE OF A CLEAR, NATURAL TONE OF VOICE:

1) Romeo displays youth and its impulsiveness in great form, his physical appetite is not controlled by reason.

1) Romeo is too young and impulsive; he can't control his appetites.

2) The conflict in Verona, created by the bitterness and competition between the Montagues and Capulets, emerged as an extreme element, for the chaos and confusion in Romeo and Juliet's relationship.

2) It was the conflict in Verona, created by the bitterness and competition between the Montagues and Capulets, that caused so much chaos and confusion in Romeo and Juliet's relationship.

3) Romeo is growing from a young man, and is show to still act as one, being quite hasty and immature in his actions.

3) Still quite young, being only sixteen as a matter of fact, Romeo is too hasty and immature.

4) The streets of Verona run with the blood of a people without a common sagacity.

4) The streets of Verona run red with the blood of an impulsive and even stupid people.

5) This isn't the only time that Romeo leaves the realm of intelligence.

5) This isn't the only time that Romeo acts rashly.

Model Papers:

What's Love Got to Do With It?

By Act 5, scene 5 of the play, Romeo and Juliet have met their fated demise. The "star-crossed" love of the two youths has been brought to an abrupt end. But can it all be blamed on fate? I think not. It is clear to me that the error is truly in the hand of Tybalt, with his penchant for hostility; Lady Capulet, having remained cold and distant, not forming a relationship of any sort with her daughter; and finally, Friar Lawrence, his arrogance somehow fooling him into believing that he alone had the power to end a family feud that had been brewing for years.

Let's start with Tybalt. Tybalt is a hateful instigator whose hostility leads not only to the deaths of Romeo and Juliet, but to that of Mercutio as well and eventually, his own. While others are trying desperately to calm the situation, Tybalt is always the first to step in and bring it back to a fury. In response to Benvolio's attempt to bring the very first altercation of the play to a stop, Tybalt replies, "…talk of peace? I hate the word, as I hate hell, all Montagues, and thee" (1.1.65-67). He refuses to "endure" (1.5.74) Romeo's presence at the Capulet festivities, swearing by the "stock and honor of my kin, to strike him dead I hold it not a sin," (1.5.56-57). The final straw comes when Romeo, just married, is greeted by Tybalt with, "Romeo, the love I bear thee can afford no better term than this: thou art a villain" (3.1.56-57). Romeo tries to ignore it, not able to explain why he refuses to defend himself; this causes Mercutio to step up instead, which leads to his death. Then Romeo is forced to reciprocate with the murder of Tybalt. Romeo is thus banished and then the plot resulting in the deaths of our lovers emerges.

Lady Capulet could have stopped all this. Were she more of a mother to Juliet, instead of merely the body that carried her for nine months, Juliet may not have felt that Friar Lawrence's plan was her only option. Were she less cold and insensitive, she and Lord Capulet would have had a better relationship as well, and she would have been able to step in on Juliet's behalf when she knew full well that Juliet was not content to marry Paris. But she didn't know, did she? No, Lady Capulet was so distant from her daughter that she brought the news of her coming marriage as "joyful tidings" (3.5.104). This after minutes before coldly telling Juliet that "some grief shows much of love, /But much of grief shows still some want of wit" (3.5.722-23). What mother would be so callous as to chastise her daughter for grieving at the loss of a close family member and then expect her so quickly to move onto happier thoughts of an upcoming unwanted marriage? I wish my mother and I were so close.

The final character who could have certainly stopped the deaths of Romeo and Juliet is Friar Lawrence. This man, whom the two teens both trusted very much, was so arrogant as to think that he alone could with this one plot and this perfect love bring to an end the feud of the tow families that had been battling for years. How irresponsible to take the trust that they had in him as an elder and a man of god to know the right thing for them to do, and use it to attempt to gain the credit for the end of the feud. The Zeffirelli film portrays it all so clearly, as the Friar reaches the steps and after just chastising Romeo for the way that he jumped into situations, and as he spots the cross, the Friar's eyes light up and you see him realize that he has the power with "this alliance may so happy prove to turn your households rancor to pure love" (2.3.93-4). This arrogance only continues after Romeo has been banished and the friar advises him to leave for Mantua while the Friar will have the chance "to blaze your marriage, reconcile your friends, beg pardon of the Prince, and call thee back with twenty thousand times more joy than thou went'st forth in lamentation" (3.3.154-57). To think that he could within a couple of weeks after Romeo was gone just apologize here and ask forgiveness there, and whoops-a-daisy, Romeo is welcomed back to Verona with a parade to boot, this is just ridiculous.

But Romeo and Juliet trusted the Friar, trusted his judgment. And Juliet should have been able to confide in her mother. And Tybalt should have been able to count to ten and walk away. But then we would not have the most famous of Shakespeare's tragedies. The two hours traffic of the stage, fearful passage of death-marked love. But then, what's love go to do with it?

The Commonality of Deficiency

The haunting quality of this play comes from the fact that the tragedy results from a series of what seem like coincidences. If only Romeo and Juliet's families had not been enemies; if only Lord Capulet had not decided at that moment to quickly marry off Juliet to Paris; if only Friar John had not been quarantined; if only Romeo had waited just a little longer before swallowing the fatal poison. But these driving forces of the play are not mere twists of fate. In reality, they are due to the character deficiencies of most of the characters, but primarily Mercutio, Capulet, Friar Lawrence and, of course, Romeo and Juliet, and they are what propel the story to its inevitable ending.

Romeo's hotheaded friend Mercutio enjoys a good brawl if it means he can be the center of attention. His primary shortcoming is his egotism, The brazen bravado he displays when he eggs on Tybalt, who ends up inflicting the fatal stab wound, is reflected in his final speech, when he refuses to let the gathered crowds see him die.

Even in his last moments, he looks for a laugh, punning, "Ask for me tomorrow, and you shall find me a grave man" (3.1.98-100). This exaggerated sense of self serves as fuel for the fire of hatred: Since he cannot bear for his side to lose, he encourages the fighting between the families, and makes each fight into a battle for glory. If not for young men like him, the Capulet-Montague hostility might have been long forgotten.

Lord Capulet also possesses a defect of character: For him, it is his closed-mindedness. Initially, he was willing to let Paris woo Juliet directly, and to allow Juliet to have some measure of choice in a husband. But after the death of Tybalt, Capulet's narrow vision determines that the only thing that will ease Juliet's grief is a wedding to Paris. He loves his daughter; that is certain. But that love in a person such as Capulet creates a blindness to the fact that Juliet might have some legitimate concerns behind her refusal, and he instead calls her a "disobedient wretch" and tells her to "get thee to church a Thursday or never after look me in the face" (3.5.161-163). If he had been more understanding, perhaps Juliet would have been able to confide her secret (that she had married Romeo the day before). While all hell would probably have broken loose, it is conceivable that she would not have had to rim away and put into action all that transpired afterwards.

Friar Lawrence also lends his poorer qualities to the mix. His naivete leads to poor judgment. Although he chastises Romeo for being a fickle young fool for wanting to marry Juliet when only a day before he had been pining after Rosaline, the Friar allows a fairly unrealistic hope, that these two long-feuding families will be reconciled through the union of their children, to override his concerns about performing the marriage ceremony. He later masterminds a dangerously creative plan involving Juliet taking a drug and being buried in a tomb and Romeo coming to the rescue. Most adults would talk these teenagers out of their folly, but Friar Lawrence actually believes that going to these lengths will benefit all of Verona in the end. An example of this naive optimism, which ends up helping put the tragedy into action, is found when the Friar tells

 Romeo, who has just killed Tybalt and been banished, that "happiness courts thee in her best array but ... thou puts up thy fortune and thy love" (3.3.142-144). To believe that the events of that day in Romeo's life were actually positive is to be a bit simple-minded. If Friar Lawrence had been wiser, Friar John's inability to deliver the letter to Romeo would have been such a crucial point.

Of course, a great deal of responsibility for the disastrous outcome rests on the shoulders of the young Romeo and Juliet themselves. Romeo is simply too immature to be part of this story and not end up dead. He waxes eloquent about Rosaline, saying "Show me a mistress that is passing fair; What doth her beauty serve but as a note/ where I may read who passed that passing fair?" (1.1.237-39). But within a few hours, he is saying of Juliet, "Did my heart love tin now? Forswear it, sight! For I ne'er saw true beauty till this night" (1.5.54-55). When things fall apart, Romeo needs to be reminded to stand up and face them. As he lies on the floor sobbing, the Friar admonishes him, "Art thou a man? Thy form cries out thou art; Thy tears are womanish, thy wild acts denote the unreasonable fury of a beast ... Thou hast amazed me" (3.3.109-111, 114). Romeo's immaturity is the parent of impetuousness, which leads him to feel he simply must marry Juliet within a day, and which means he allows grief and anger to prompt him to murder Tybalt. Obviously, if neither of these two events had occurred, Romeo and Juliet would not have met their untimely end. Romeo would not have been banished, and I suspect that Juliet would have gone on to marry Pans and Romeo would have found another cute girl to fantasize about by the time the weekend rolled around.

Juliet, too, is childish in her view of the world. While not as quick to jump to drastic action as Romeo, she agrees to these reckless plans of elopement, potion-swallowing and tomb-haunting, genuinely believing they will help her be with the boy who is technically her husband but who at this point is still little more than a crush. She pledges her love to Romeo after having known him just a couple of hours; she even admits that he is in love with him although her ears "have yet not drunk a hundred words of thy tongue's uttering" (2.2.58-59). With the impatience of a child, she can't wait for her wedding day to pass so that she can consummate her marriage at night. And when she awakens in the tomb to find Romeo dead, she thinks of no other option but killing herself, calling the dagger "happy" (5.3.169) and opportune. Romeo, of course, is guilty of this haste as well, having just moments before also committed suicide. In the cases of both lovers, there are multiple points in the road at which more maturity could have meant a happier ending to the story.

In all, there are many character deficiencies that play a part in the undoing of Verona's fair young lovers. But the existence of those flaws in a group of vastly different people serves as the one thing that actually links them. And interestingly, it is this commonality of deficiency, having led to tragedy at the end of the play, that eventually brings the bitter enemies together.