Response to Shakespeare Essay Example

Response to Shakespeare Essay I will take several points of the play into account, such as: individual characterisation; attitudes to life and love; and the fate, destiny, coincidence and the star-crossed side of events. By the end of this assignment, I hope I will have answered this question.To introduce the assignment, I am going to give my views on the play, before looking at each aspect of it in close detail:My first impression was that I thought there were several reasons as to why this is a good play, including the way it makes us think about the plot, and so in turn, how it makes us think about the real world outside it. For example, we see two young people (Romeo and Juliet) fall in love. This may make us impose questions about our own lives, such as where our own love lives are going, and if the reader is in a relationship, whether it has potential (perhaps like Romeo and Juliet could have had), or if it will never work out given foreseeable or unforeseeable circumstances (such as Romeo, with his suppose d fascination with Rosaline).The second impression I got from it was from Rosaline, another character in the play, as she helped us to get an insight into the life of Romeo. I personally doubt that he really did love Rosaline, and that he actually wanted to fantasise over a woman who he knew he cold never (realistically) have a relationship with. This could be vital for my assignment, because the attitudes to love between Romeo and Juliet could have killed them, in the sense that Romeo felt that he needed to immediately commit suicide when he saw the person he loved, dead.The final impression that I got was that the characters in the play seem as if they have their own different personalities. For example, Romeo is so easily led by his love life, but yet he never acts upon what he feels, by getting together with the woman Ay me, the sad hours seem long (i.i.160) in other words, he is depressed with his love and keeping it to himself, rather than telling the woman (Rosaline in this case). Juliet however is a lot different Conceit, more rich in matter than in words (ii.vi.30) in other words, she thinks that people would be better off if you acted upon your dreams, and made them into reality. This shows that these two characters had different attitudes to the same thing which shows that they had their own personalities.Overall, I am expecting this play to be quite fascinating and enjoyable. Romeo and Juliet is world renowned, and is generally recognised as being a brilliant play, with its author being one of the most famous writers in world history. On the offset, the plot and characters seem to be integrated together very well, to produce a well balanced and easy to understand play. Overall, I have high expectations of this play.To answer the question, I am firstly going to look at the fate, destiny, coincidence, and the star-crossed (Prologue.6) aspect of the play. I personally feel that fate, destiny, coincidence, and the star-crossed aspect, do play an i mportant part in the play.Here is a list of quotes regarding the fate and destiny side of events:* Give me my Romeo, and when I shall die,Take him and cut him out in little stars(iii.ii.20-21) Juliet here is saying that when she dies, she will take Romeo with him and they will be up with the stars together and eventually that did happen.* Then love devouring death(ii.vi.7) Romeo here is saying that their love will be departed because one, or both of them will die (like a vicar saying Till death us do part during a marriage service, meaning hopefully you wont part marriage until one of the couple die)* Too like the lightning, which doth cease to beEre one can say, it lightens(ii.ii.119-120) Here, Juliet is describing the love between her and Romeo as lightning, possibly because lightning will represent their powerful, and electric love. But also, lightning only lasts a few seconds, so maybe fate is telling us that their love wont last for very long.* That I must love a loathed enemy (i.v.140) She thinks fate has come upon her, because she thinks she must love him because it was meant to happen. She doesnt give herself the option to try and not love Romeo.I think coincidence and destiny had quite a lot to do with the plays events, although the characters themselves brought some of the events on. Coincidence, I feel had the largest part to play in the events that were to lead to the deaths, as far as the characters were concerned. For example, If Peter, the Capulets servant was to never ask Romeo I pray sir can you read? (i.i.57), Romeo would never have got invited to the Capulets party, the place where Romeo and Juliet were eventually going to meet for the first time.I think the star-crossed method also played an important role within the play. This is because the characters referred to the stars often, either in a good way, or in a bad way.From forth the fatal loins of these two foes,A pair of star-crossed lovers take their life (prologue.5-6)This quote in the prologue (the introduction) of the play basically tells us that the story was destined to take its course in the way it did, because the ill-fated couple were born lovers, destined to end up in disaster because thats what the stars would lead them to. I think this quote alone makes destiny a very important aspect of the play and question, because the prologue actually tells the story, and tells us what will happen in it. If you saw the prologue as Shakespeares truthful speech on what he wanted to happen, then destiny would have to be what killed Romeo and Juliet. However, if you saw the prologue as Shakespeares mystery element to the play (where it may or may not happen), then it may or may not be destinys fault that Romeo and Juliet died.I am now going to look at the conflict side of events. This is one of the main areas in which the dramatic mood and events was used to create the drama, by creating tension and mystery with the conflict. The most obvious way I can describe what I m ean by tension and mystery is the very first scene, involving the fiery character Tybalt. Basically, two members of the Capulet household, Sampson and Gregory, start taunting two members of the Montague family, Abraham and Balthasar. Basically, this brawl turns into a fight, which another character, Benvolio tries to stop. Eventually, Tybalt comes along, and as the fiery tempered character he is, starts to attack Benvolio. Tybalt laughs in the face of Benvolio, when he asks Tybalt to part these men with me (i.i.67), and immediately starts taunting Benvolio, saying, I hate hell, all Montagues, and thee (i.i.69). Eventually everyone started fighting. This shows that conflict was in the play from the startAlso, this makes all sorts of questions and thoughts run through the heads of people who havent read or seen the play. Who are these characters? What is their relationship with Romeo and Juliet like? How well do they know them or get on with them? Why did the Capulets and Montagues st art fighting? And the most important question of all what will this lead towards later in the play, as far as Romeo and Juliets deaths are concerned? We could also say this is the perfect start to Romeo and Juliet, as well as a very good conflict between the characters. This is because it makes us want to read on, to try and answer all these questions I have just raised. However, more importantly for us with this assignment, it gives a us an impressions as to what the fiery character Tybalt is like.Tybalt is one of the main characters, and in his own right partly responsible for Romeo and Juliets death. The story is very complicated, but basically, Tybalt kills Mercutio, Romeos close friend, and so Romeo kills Tybalt. This forces Prince Escalus to banish Romeo from Verona, because he had already warned the town not to fight any more as he was sick of the conflict between everyone. This caused all the following events, mainly Friar Lawrences plan for Romeo to return to Verona to col lect Juliet, so they could leave Verona together. But this plan went wrong, and as we know, it ended up unintentionally killing them instead. Because of this, we could blame Tybalt for their deaths. Although it seems Romeo was to blame for being banished, I see this as an attack of revenge, and not a regular fight. Benvolio thinks this tooBut by and by comes back to Romeo,Who had but newly entertained revenge (iii.i.173-174)In other words, Benvolio is saying that although it was a little harsh of Romeo to murder Tybalt (by entertaining revenge), it wasnt an act of murder, because Tybalt had done exactly the same thing as Romeo, only he murdered Romeos best friend.Im now going to talk about some other of the main characters who I think caused Romeo and Juliets deathFriar Lawrence: Although Friar Lawrence only directly influenced the deaths once; he does influence them quite a lot indirectly. He mainly acts upon what Romeo and Juliet are faced with, and tries to sort it out for them. For example, Friar Lawrence comes up with the plan for Juliet to pretend shes died of grief, because of Tybalts (her cousins) death.And, with wild looks, bid me devise some mean,To rid her from her second marriage (v.iii.239-240)Here, Friar Lawrence is basically explaining that Juliet came to him for help, so she could get out of marrying the man her parents wanted her to marry (Paris). This is why Friar Lawrence accidentally created all this chaos just to be a helping hand to her.The only direct effect he had could have been the worst one he could have made he married them. Although he wasnt sure a marriage between them would work, providing the fact that they were still teenagers, and also providing the fact that their families feuded, he still married them, because This alliance may so happy prove (ii.iii.91). Basically, he thought that if he did marry them, he would bring the two families together To turn your households rancour to pure love (ii.iii.92). I thought this was sli ghtly optimistic, but I personally think that if Romeo and Juliet want to be married, then thats all that counts, not what their families would think to it.Prince Escalus: The prince only caused one main event, but it turned out to be fatal. Im not entirely sure it would have changed things for the better if he had punished Romeo differently for causing Tybalts death, but never-the-less, it couldnt have turned out as worse as it with his punishment as banishment! Prince Escalus gave the wrong sentence to Romeo, by banishing him, as he said only two or three days before then that he would execute anyone who would fight again in VeronaIf you ever disturb our streets again,Your lives shall suffer the forfeit of the peace. (i.i.95-96)Basically, if anyone fights in the street again, then his or her life will suffer badly, because if they arent banishment, then they will get a death sentence. When he caught Romeo and Tybalt fighting, he decided to banish Romeo -Let Romeo hence in haste,El se, when hes found, that hour will be his last (iii.i.197-198)In other words, if hes ever seen in Verona again, he shall be executed. I cant help but think that if Tybalt hadnt caused that fight in the very first scene, Prince Escalus would have overlooked what happened, as he always had done before. This would mean Friar Lawrence wouldnt have come up with his ingenious plan, and perhaps things would have turned out for the better.The families (the Montagues and Capulets): I think that the families are to blame for everything! Capulet and Lady Capulet try persuading Juliet to marry someone she doesnt want to marry, even after her cousin (Tybalt) had just died! In the script, this doesnt seen so special, but if we put it into perspective, it will seem a lot different. If a 14-year-old girl today was suddenly told she had to marry someone, without even knowing about it until a few days before the ceremony, I dont think it would be well received by the girl, or by the general public. T he most overwhelming thing I saw was in the third act, just after Romeo had murdered Tybalt, whereby Lady Capulet, Tybalts relative, was bad-mouthing the Montagues instead of mourning Tybalts death!He is a kinsman to the Montague;Affection makes him false, he speaks not true (iii.i.179-180) (Referring to Tybalts death)This is really bad, because she is correctly blaming Romeo, but for the wrong reason. By this, I mean that no matter what Romeo would do, he would always lie and in this case, it would be his fault no matter what he had done! This seems as if she didnt care about her relatives death, and was more concerned about getting the Montague family into more trouble! Overall, this shows that the families cared more about feuding, than their childrens lives, so perhaps they could be to blame for that reason.Peter (a servant): The early scene with Peter was the best example of coincidence in the play. I believe coincidence ruins a play, because it wouldnt usually happen in real l ife, and therefore appears to be a flaw in the plot to me. I think this wasnt so much bad coincidence, but Shakespeare saw the flaw he would have, bringing the Capulet and Montague families together at a party, so he had to do something to get them to meet which would seem like no easy task. Basically, Peter couldnt read, but yet he had to post invitations to the people who the Capulet family invited. When he asks Romeo to read the letters, he responds by asking Romeo if he would go to the party to drink a glass or two of wine be not of the house of Montagues, I pray you come and crush a cup of wine (i.ii.81-83). This is quite well thought out in my opinion, because it seems like the situation is feasible, so perhaps using coincidence in this scene wasnt such a bad idea, and didnt seem like a flaw in the plot to me.Getting back to the point If Peter could have been able to read the letters, then Romeo would probably not have been invited to the Capulet party, and would probably no t met Juliet. This is why I think Peter could have caused their deaths. This concludes my character analysis.One final aspect I am going to look at is the time Shakespeare was writing. This can be explained easily. Basically, Shakespeares 16th century audiences would have thought differently to us as their beliefs were based upon a lack of scientific knowledge, and their day-to-day lives were affected by their lack of technology. For example, It was typical of feuds to run in families (i.e. with the Capulets and Montagues); it was typical of huge sword fights to occur in the streets (i.e. The Capulets and Montagues in a huge brawl in the first act); and finally, where we see popular holiday resorts such as the Caribbean as being exotic, Shakespeares audiences thought that Verona in Italy was an exotic setting. Basically, Shakespeares audiences thought incredibly different back then, and although it may explain some of the events that have happened, such as the fighting and feuding, it doesnt completely explain why Romeo and Juliet had to die in the play.To conclude, I will put all this evidence together and try to form a clear explanation, as to what exactly killed Romeo and Juliet. I think that destiny, coincidence and the star-crossed theme is concerned, could have killed Romeo and Juliet it all depends on how you look at it. If you took the fate idea in the Prologue (where it tells you of their deaths, as I explained earlier) seriously, then it would definitely be fates fault.As far as the characters are concerned, I think that almost every character has been integrated together in a particular way; to all somehow kill Romeo and Juliet. I dont think there is one (main) character in the play that didnt do something or another, to either directly or indirectly contribute to their deaths in some way.Conflict played a reasonably large part in their deaths. The constant fighting in the streets made Prince Escalus banish anyone who was to fight (i.e. Romeo when he killed Tybalt). The conflict then though was due to the family feuds, as the fights were mainly between the Capulets and Montagues. It is hard to say, but I dont think this caused their deaths, simply because they werent fought because of Romeo and Juliet.Overall, I couldnt say who or what killed Romeo and Juliet and be 100% sure of it, but I personally believe it was destiny. This reason may not seem justified as far as the actual play was concerned, but in the prologue, it tells of their deaths this was a really important part, if not the most important part of the playFrom forth the fatal loins of these two foes,A pair of star-crossed lovers take their life (prologue.5-6)Basically, we knew all along that they would die during the play, so we couldnt change what would happen to them it was destiny. Therefore, to answer the question, I dont think that the deaths of Romeo and Juliet could have been avoided. Response to Shakespeare Essay Example Response to Shakespeare Essay It is undoubtable that the play of King Lear is predominately of evil, which is ultimately overcome by the forces of good. There are many variations of evil depicted in this play among them are greed, violence, hatred, madness, betrayal, avarice and envy. The most prominent form of evil, and one of the earliest in the play, is greed. Gonerill, the oldest daughter, introduces this firstly after Lear stated that due to old age he was worn out and wanted to leave the affairs of his kingdom to younger strengths so that he might have time to prepare for death. To do this he divided his kingdom into three, and that each third would be a dowry, one for each of his three daughters, he then asks Gonerill how much she loves him. Gonerill, realising that because of Lears infirmity in old age, she would be well rewarded on giving the right answer, replies saying that she loves her father more than she can say and more than anything else including her own freedom: We will write a custom essay sample on Response to Shakespeare specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Response to Shakespeare specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Response to Shakespeare specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer Dearer than eyesight, space, and liberty. (1.1.56) This answer is greatly exaggerated especially as she stated that she loves Lear more than life itself: No less than life (1.1.58) In her greed Gonerill would say anything to get what she wanted, which was as much as possible therefore she covered the lack of love with extravagant words. Lear accepting this answer as a true declaration of her love for him rewarded Gonerills greed with one third of his kingdom. On asking his second daughter, Regan, Lear is told that she is the same as her sister and so worth the same only that Gonerills answer came short of the love that she has for her father: I am made of that self mettle as my sister And price me at her worth. In my true heart I find she names the very deed of love; Only she comes too short, (1.1.69/72) Knowing that she would also get a third of the kingdom like her sister she declared that she hates all joys compared to the pleasure that she has in loving her father: That I profess Myself an enemy to all other joys (1.1.72/73) On hearing this from Regan, Lear is more than pleased and rewards Regans greed also, with a third of his kingdom equal to the third that he gave to Gonerill. Edmund the bastard son of Gloucester introduces another instance of greed in the play. Edmund was both greedy and envious of his older, legitimate brother, Edgar. Edmunds envy was due to the fact that his older brother was the legitimate son of Gloucester and therefore entitled to inherit the whole of Gloucesters estate upon his fathers death, while he would inherit nothing, thus the greed. Edmund would do anything to inherit the wealth including betray his own brother: Well then, Legitimate Edgar, I must have your land. Our fathers love is to the bastard Edmund Cordelia in fear of appearing greedy in the way her sisters did stated that she loved her father according to her duty as a daughter and no more: I love your majesty According to my bond, no more nor less. (1.1.91/93) You have begot me, bred me, loved me. I return those duties as are right fit, (1.1.96/97) This proclamation of Cordelias introduces two more evils into the play, the madness that Lear displays being one of them. This madness made him unable to distinguish that Gonerill and Regan were not speaking the truth about their profound love for him and that Cordelia loved him the most of all. Therefore when Cordelia spoke the truth about her love and said that she did not love him above all else, Lear became enraged and subsequently disowned his most favoured daughter, sharing the last third of his kingdom, which would have been her dowry, between Gonerill and Regan: Here I disclaim all my paternal care, Propinquity and property of blood, And as a stranger to my heart and me Hold thee from this forever. (1.1.113/116) With my two daughters dowers digest the third. Let pride, which she calls plainness, marry her. (1.1.128/129) He also presented the Duke of Albany and the Duke of Cornwall with a `coronet` between them along with the power that it retained: Beloved sons, be yours; which to confirm, This coronet between you. (1.1.138/139) Lears madness is also apparent when Kent, Lears most loyal and trusted friend, tried to intervene and spoke up for Cordelia saying quite literally that Lear was mad and needed saving from himself and that Gonerill and Regan had empty hearts and did not love their father like they claimed. Be Kent unmannerly When Lear is mad. What wouldst thou do, old man? (1.1.145/146) Thy youngest daughter does not love thee least, Nor are those empty-hearted whose low sounds Reverb no hollowness. (1.1.152/154) Lears anger grew and he turned on Kent showing us yet another evil, violence, threatening Kents life if he said more: Kent, on thy life, no more! (1.1.155) Continuing Kent explains that Lears threat means nothing because he would gladly give his life for that of his king and that he is only acting to ensure the kings own safety: My life I never held but as a pawn To wage against thine enemies; nor fear to lose it, Thy safety being motive. (1.1.156/158) Enraged all the more Lear chooses to `reward` Kents audacity with banishment from the kingdom allowing him five days to prepare to leave, but, if he remained in the kingdom on the sixth day he would be killed: Take thy reward. Five days we do allot thee for provision To shield thee from disasters of the world, And on the sixth to turn thy hated back Upon our kingdom. If on the tenth day following Thy banished trunk be found in our dominions The moment is thy death. (1.1.172/178) Shakespeare uses various techniques to capture the attention of his Elizabethan Audience and to keep them entertained, one of these is the expressive and imaginative language that he used especially in some of Lears speeches. He uses a very powerful speech when Lear realises that Gonerill has deceived him and does not truly love him: Hear, nature, hear! Dear goddess, Hear! Suspend thy purpose if thou didst intend To make this creature fruitful. Into her womb convey sterility, Dry up her organs of increase, And from her derogate body never spring A babe to honour her. If she must teem, Create her child of spleen, (1.4.272/278) Shakespeare uses repetition: Hear, nature, hear! Dear goddess, hear! To get the audiences attention, this technique is used throughout the play, most often when Lear is angered and trying to make something known, Lears speeches were among the most powerful and Shakespeare would have wanted their full attention during this time in the play. Another of Lears speeches used by Shakespeare depicts, well, the constant referral to the planets and gods by all of the characters in the play: For by the sacred radiance of the sun, The mysteries of Hecat and the night, By all the operation of the orbs From who we do exist, and cease to be, (1.1.109/112) This constant referral is another of the techniques used by Shakespeare to capture the attention of his audience. The Elizabethans would have had a general interest in the stars and planets as the telescope had been invented in the early 17th century and therefore it was now possible for them to be seen properly for the first time. Edmund also brings astronomy and astrology together during one of his speeches: Treachers by spherical predominance, drunkards, liars, And adulterers by an enforced obedience of planetary Influence. (1.2.123/125) My father compounded with my mother under the Dragons tail, and my nativity was under Ursa Major, (1.2.128/129) Shakespeare also used another topic of general interest to the Elizabethans; he makes a referral to disease. This was because during the Elizabethan era the bubonic plague was rife and as a result the playhouses often had to be shut down in order to stop the spread of the disease when someone with the plague had been there: Kill thy physician and thy fee bestow Upon the foul disease. (1.1.163/164) Among the various evils illustrated in the play of King Lear I believe that greed is not only the most prominent but also the most important to the complete work. Without the evil of greed Lear would never have expressed such anger and hatred at his daughters, Cordelia would never have been disinherited and finally killed and Kent, Lears most faithful friend would never have been banished. Thus many of the other evils in the play were introduced as a result of the greed, Lears madness also played an important part in this as his infirmity caused him to be unable to notice the truth about his daughters feelings for him. In addition to this, the language that was used by Shakespeare brought Lears speeches to life and to memade them all the more powerful.