Are we performing?

One of the things I like about Shakespeare is the idea of us, human beings, as actors in real life. Reading about the topic in internet I found a monologue I have always loved from As you like it, a play we are not reading this semester. In the scene Jaques agrees with the Duke about men and women as actors on a stage, and divides life in seven ages, from the infant to last years of our existance that can be be seen as a whole play we perform.

All The World's A Stage

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first, the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.
Then the whining schoolboy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honor, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slippered pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side;
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank, and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything. 

Playing the role was extremely important in Elizabethan England, and so it is now. The topic inevitably makes me think about social networking and the masks we wear to fit with social standards. We play a role that end up transforming our identity. Probably, most of the times, we can’t tell that we are selecting information, transforming it to make it more appealing, or deliberately creating sceneries to show the world that we are living fruitfully. Personally, I have observed people that seem to be more worried of registering every moment and uploading it than actually enjoying it.

I have found a video called "What's on your mind?" that somehow portraits the ideas previously stated. I think it is a wonderful representation of how we “perform on stage”, how we adapt our experiences in order to show what is socially accepted and to hide the shameful truth.

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxVZYiJKl1Y


References

Shakespeare, William, and Demitra Papadinis. As You Like It [Electronic Resource] : A Frankly Annotated First Folio Edition / William Shakespeare ; Annotated And With An Introduction By Demitra Papadinis. n.p.: Jefferson, N.C. : McFarland, c2011., 2011. U of Georgia Catalog. Web. 10 Sept. 2014

The role of women

Ever since the beginning of times all people have fit a certain role in society, and without hesitation they have committed to fulfill them. Certainty, during the Renaissance period, this was no different. However, during this time new necessities were rising among people. Perhaps, what change a need to explore different roles of society? The need for social mobility  was deeply express by playwrights, who through theater aimed at changing the paradigms of the time and; indeed, they were able to do it in a way.

The democratization of theater was possible, people were able to attend and have fun as well as nobility, yet one characteristic remain the same within the English theater: only men were able to perform on stage. So, once again women remained at the bottom of the social hierarchy. No changes were made in this matter. The question: why a man should perform a woman instead of woman? Nobody question that reality.

On the other hand, a strong woman remains at the top of the pyramid. Indeed, Queen Elizabeth was wise and at the same time “understood general admiration to her role as Virgin Queen” (The Waning of the Renaissance, 2000) so, she could remain untouched and at the same time  putting herself at the level of Virgin Mary, love and respect by everybody. In that context, it was a good idea to state as a strong icon for people, but the rest of women were still left behind.

In fact, if we draw a parallel between the past and today, we may find that the role of women has change, but still there is a punishment for being a girl. For instance, if a woman stasy at home doing house chores, it is believed that they are doing nothing, when in fact all people that have live on their own know that keeping a house clean and tied by yourself the hardest work; and if this woman decides to work, she still has to fulfill all tasks perfectly, because it is not enough just to work. So, it is fear the role women has play in the world? And what changes are needed to be made in order to really change things? It seems that as time passes and more demands are made of female, but less attention is paid to part that they play in society.

Bouwsma, W.(2000).The Waning of the Renaissance, 1550-1640.Yale University Press, 2000.

Stupid love (?)

As difficult as it might seem to accept, the story of Romeo & Juliet was like the story of El Principito; somehow, without having read it before, I knew all about it - hell, I might have even been able to quote it. Now, after finishing the whole thing... *cough, cough*... I can seriously say: Dang it! I am confused. I don't know how to feel about it and I also feel I haven't been loved enough. (really? such a cliché).

So, instead, I'm not going to try and make fall asleep with an amazing essay/analysis of what this play is about; I'm going to tell about...me. (Yep)

This is me. 23 year old Roxana. Student. Talented writer, singer, and actress (yeah, right!). Taken, and for the longest time ever. Before this, there was 16 year old Roxana. Young me was so different, and in so many ways. But above all, young Roxana thought about love as something that could only exist in movies and songs. Young Roxana had never had a boyfriend, and nobody had never liked little Ro back. However, one day I saw this kid, whose name I can’t give you, and I thought: this is it. I’m in love. (Love at fir… you know how it goes) Little me didn’t know what to do, nevertheless, how to approach this handsome man -yeah yeah, very manly-.

So what did I do? Started writing poems. POEMS. Yes. I have a collection of those. Gave them to him, and he gave them all back *bummer*. What was I doing wrong? I mean, wasn’t that what you were supposed to do? Write poems, sing songs, climb up a balcony? I went emo… all-out.

I think maybe two weeks passed. Little me was walking around, thinking about all things emo, and suddenly… I see him. This handsome (much, much more handsome) guy, walking around, just like me, with his amazing hair and school uniform - so stylish. I was in love again. It all seemed to work perfectly because he “tots” liked me back. We hung out, we talked a lot, we went to school together so we saw each other everyday, and when hormones got involved, we kissed a little. Perfect love story. Only, it wasn’t perfect. It ended. Just like all love stories should. (there’s really only two ways in which love stories can end, but they all do)

Now, you might think this isn’t a love story at all.

Yes, I was 16. Yes, I had all these misconceptions about love. Yes, I had gone all emo for someone else just two weeks before meeting him, and yes, I did believe that love was the same as infatuation. But haven’t we all been there? We’ve all been in love in a completely idiotic way.

I believe we don’t get to judge how someone else feels. We don’t get to say that what another person is feeling, even for the shortest time, isn’t what they think it is. (Yes, there was a connection. Don’t be dumb, I need my grade.)

I think, in a way, we are all Romeo. If you don’t feel like it right now, just look back. I’m pretty sure there’s something similar to this story in your past. So, what I’m trying to say is, don’t be so harsh when judging Romeo. He is not shallow and immature -well, maybe a little-, he is just a person. A teenager to be more specific.

Like all of us, he suffered:

“BENVOLIO : […] What sadness lengthens Romeo's hours?

ROMEO : Not having that, which, having, makes them short.

BENVOLIO :In love?

ROMEO :Out—

BENVOLIO :Of love?

ROMEO : Out of her favour, where I am in love.

(1.1.10)"

But then, he learned to love again:

"ROMEO: O, she doth teach the torches to burn bright!It seems she hangs upon the cheek of nightLike a rich jewel in an Ethiope's ear;Beauty too rich for use, for earth too dear!So shows a snowy dove trooping with crows,As yonder lady o'er her fellows shows.The measure done, I'll watch her place of stand,And, touching hers, make blessed my rude hand.Did my heart love till now? forswear it, sight!For I ne'er saw true beauty till this night.(1.5.1)"

Love exists in all forms: it can be tragic, it can be beautiful, it can end quickly, it can last forever. What is more important, is to feel it. However you want it, whenever you want to, for the amount of time you consider is right. If Romeo had listened to other people, he would have never experienced the kind of love he felt. When I said love stories can only go two ways, I really meant it. Either you break up, or you take it with you until the end. So, for me, he wasn’t stupid. Dying with his love wasn’t foolish. He didn’t know Juliet was alive, so he only did what all people who know they have found someone who’s special and important for them, do. He decided to spend the rest of his life with her.

Was "Michelangelo Florio Crollalanza" Shakespeare's real name?

Shakespeare era Italiano?: That is the name of the Italian book and documentary that proposes the fact that Shakespeare was born in Italy and fled to London at the time of the Holy Inquisition. When I found about this, it really made me laugh but then I remembered that while reading Romeo and Juliet I felt curious about the number of Italian references in the play, such as the names of the characters and places, and the setting of the story. One funny part of the theory that relates with Romeo and Juliet  is that it is said that on his way to London he fell in love with a girl named Giullieta, but their families opposed to their relationgship and Giullieta commited suicide.

Anyway... going back to the theory of Shakespeare being Italian...

Martino Iuvara, a retired Sicilian professor, is one of the supporters of the idea of Shakespeare being Italian; however, a lot of researchers on the field have argued that this theory has little support and evidence. The main arguments against this theory claim that Shakespeare's references of Italian cities and culture are inaccurate, and that his plays contain Italian names and settings but with cultural behaviour that is more proper of the English culture.

When I read this theory and its immediate criticism I couldn't stop making connections with what I learnt while investigating about the Revenge Play: During Elizabethan England, a lot of writers would use their knowledge about  Italy since a lot of changes in terms of knowledge were happening there, so that there was a lot of Italian influence in England. In addition, playwriters used Italian images in order to reinforce the image and/ or steretype that English people had of them.

Therefore, I tally with the schollars who reject the idea of Shakespeare being Italian because I believe that he was clever enough to take elements from a culture that was stereotyped at the time --Italian culture-- so to speak about the issues, costumes, and problems that bothered him about the Elizabethan era. By doing so, Shakespeare would be talking from a safety zone, and as well as a buffoon, he would express his criticism about the society he was immersed in, and would direct it to them without running the risk of being burnt alive.

As it's said in a quotation of Norhrop Frye in a Crush Course by John Green that I will post here:

 "Whenever Shakespeare wanted to write about the problems of feuding nobles, he either set his plays    in the distant past, or in a land far, far away"

Sources:

*Mabillard, A. (2004, September 20) Was Shakespeare Italian?. Retrieved from  http://www.shakespeare-online.com/biography/shakespeareitalian.html

*Kathman, D. Shakespeare's knowledge of Italy, the classics, and the law.. Retrieved from http://shakespeareauthorship.com/italy.html#top

*Voyager. Shakespeare era italiano? - 1 parte. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmdSFQnNuWI

Love and death: binary opposition

It is a popular agreement that Romeo's and Juliet's story is about death despite that there is love in the novel. However, love was always present in  Shakespeare's characters and something that one cannot deny is the lovely and confusing language that it was used in the dialogues.

Well, one of the themes that I would like to focus on is love and death. It is obvious that there is a binary opposition between those two concepts and that each of them depend directly; love could not exist without death. As we, readers, know that there was a dispute between the Capulets and the Montagues, the love between Romeo and Juliet will end in death. 

Therefore, one of the scene that called my attention was the balcony scene...I mean, come one, who would not like that her Romeo or Juliet climb up to our balcony...(well, it would be weird if the woman climb it...just saying). That is the dream for many girls, but there is present "death" at the same time: as Juliet fall in love for Romeo, that "fall" means death in the way that love make us blind about everything. I want to express with this that when we are fall for somebody, we do not see the world as we used to see; everything is pink color with little ponies and all that. So, in this sense, that love makes us leave our "original" way of seeing thing and now we create another one.

O Romeo, Romeo,
wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father and refuse thy name,
Or if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I’ll no longer be a Capulet.

                                                                                    Romeo and Juliet, chapter 2.1.74-78

Besides, when someone loves somebody is inevitable to fall, to died for someone (in a good way of the expression). Thus, in this sense love depends on death to exist in the novel. Both concepts are related and what is more, I think that death is more important than love at some moments. Despite what I can think about it, love is a feeling that has a strong power in Skakespeare's novel.

Finally, I would like to ask you, would you mind die for love? Would you take that risk? Or would you be safe?

For fear of that, I still will stay with thee,

And never from this palace of dim night

Depart again. Here, here will I remain

With worms that are thy chamber maids. Oh, here

Will I set up my everlasting rest,

And shake the yoke of inauspicious stars

From this world-wearied flesh. Eyes, look your last.

Arms, take your last embrace. And, lips, O you

The doors of breath, seal with a righteous kiss

A dateless bargain to engrossing death.

(kisses JULIET, takes out the poison)

Come, bitter conduct, come, unsavoury guide.

Thou desperate pilot, now at once run on

The dashing rocks thy seasick, weary bark.

Here’s to my love! (drinks the poison) O true apothecary,

Thy drugs are quick. Thus with a kiss I die.

                                                                             Romeo and Juliet, act 5, scene 3, page 5.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GDd83IQDxw

Religious Useless Figures in Romeo and Juliet

In Romeo and Juliet, we can see some events that turn the story into another genre. Once a romantic comedy, the play changes into a tragedy unleashed by the death of Mercutio. This drastic change of the play is due to the forces of order failing miserably in their roles. Such forces of order relate to the political power invested upon the Prince, but special attention is needed on who is the agent of spiritual tragedy that causes the play’s fatal ending: Friar Laurence.

Friar Laurence is a character that makes things possible, but when it means to bring back peace and love, he fails as he is the factor for confusion to arise. The play focuses on a pair of young lovers who have barely discovered every aspect of themselves in their adolescence, and who have nothing to learn from their parents; a group of violent and impulsive people in a never-ending war whose reason is never explicit. It is in this context in fair Verona in which the lovers seek refuge in Friar Laurence, who agrees to marry them. It was probably a good idea considering that with that he tried to (...), but everything changes after the letter telling Romeo of Juliet’s fake death. The letter never makes to Romeo’s hands, being it the only mission the Friar had. He, thus, becomes the agent of chaos for the play as he unleashes Romeo in a suicidal mission.

In fact, the Friar is to be blamed for several instances that were vital for the lovers to finally settle together within the play. Recalling the death of Mercutio among several fatal events in the play, Weinberger (2003) mentions “friar Laurence’s carelessness in not telling Friar john that the letter to Romeo was important,” “Friar Laurence slowness in getting to the tomb when he realizes Romeo has not been informed of the plot, “and his “further carelessness in abandoning her (Juliet) in the tomb” (352). He essentially mentions of Laurence’s failures in helping the lovers to be finally be together in peace. The Friar Laurence, in the sense, is seen as an entity of love and peace failing as he does not provide the space for Romeo and Juliet to love each other; moreover, he, in his carelessness, provokes Romeo to return to Verona only to kill Paris before committing suicide. The religious entity of understanding and peace in Verona is useless against impulsiveness in Romeo and the power of love itself as represented in Juliet.

As a conclusion, I can say that the play is ground for debate between religious and secular authority. But both kinds of authorities fail in their roles and their help and guidance has slipped by unrecognized.

Works Cited

Weinberger, Jerry. "Pious Princes and Red-Hot Lovers: The Politics of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet." The Journal of Politics 65.2 (2003): 350-375. Web.

Love = Life = Death?

During the last lessons on Romeo and Juliet, what made me reflect the most was the relationship between passionate love and death.  To be finally together, Romeo and Juliet decide to die. Also, when they start drowning in this sea of love, they sort of disappear from the rest of the world; they create a new universe of their own.

Love brings Romeo and Juliet to life by escaping from the people they are supposed to be and by letting they feel deeply; yet at the same time, love takes them to actually die.

In this post, I wanted to show you a television series, which I used to watch when I was a teenager, called Pushing Daisies. At the very beginning, I thought it was a story similar to R&J because of the fact that Ned and Charlotte “Chuck” live an impossible love. However, then I realized that the play and Pushing Daisies have something more in common, and that is the relationship between a profound love and death and life: in this cute story, Ned (the protagonist) has a very rare ability, he can reanimate the dead by touching them, but if the thing is relived more than one minute another living creature with similar life value in the surroundings dies to make balance.  Chuck, his loved one is one of the dead that Ned has revived.  Ned gives life to Charlotte, the same as what Romeo does with Juliet or Juliet does with Romeo. Both couples get involved in a passionate relationship, but they cannot be together; the Montague-Capulet because they are enemies, and Ned-Chuck because if the pie-maker touches the girl, he kills her –that is part of his ability; when he touches what he revived again, he gives them death.

I wonder if that happens every time we love. I think that loves actually give us life and charm, but I am not sure if every real love leads us to die.

Well, I encourage you to watch this series if you like, I hope some of you find the relationship I wanted to make. Here you have the trailer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRC_zw0q58Q

And here is the two seasons http://watchseries.lt/episode/Pushing_Daisies_(2007)_s1_e1.html

Have a nice week

Suchtweetsorrow: Is it really acceptable?

Romeo and Juliet is one of the best known and most performed plays of William Shakespeare. Several adaptations have taken place around the world, such as comics, movies, operas, and so on. Among these adaptations, there is one that called my attention in a powerful way.

This adaptation is called “Suchtweetsorrow”. The Royal Shakespeare Company and the Mudlark Production Comany, both cooperated to present Romeo and Juliet as a 21st century story, using Twitter as the stage, in real time. Other social media were also used, like Youtube and Facebook. From April to May of 2010, actors and actresses were free to improvise and to use modern language, but following the main sequence of events. In this adaptation, Mr. Montague killed Mrs. Capulet in a car accident, giving rise to hostility between two families.  The background was fully adapted to modern times.

Summary of the story produced by the company: http://vimeo.com/12363657

Although Old English was replaced by Modern English and diverse aspects were modified, the core ideas of the play were kept, like the confrontation between roles, true self and society expectations; and the rebellion shown by young generations.

It is true that nowadays social media have become part of our lives, and there is not much we can do about it. Younger generations have grown immersed in the Facebook and Twitter world. Despite that, do we really need to make EVERYTHING technology-socialmedia friendly? Not a rhetorical question, I really wonder if we have to. As future teachers of these generations,  we must find the means of approaching our students, catching their interest and guiding them towards meaningful learning, so in this case, we would be presenting them Romeo and Juliet  in a well-known context for them, and they could be very interested. But, then I think, it is valid or acceptable to modify this masterpiece in such an aggressive way in order to bring it closer to young generations? What if we start modifying several legendary works with that purpose only? 

Some of their tweets (You can see all of the tweets in their profiles):

Juliet's twitter
Romeo's twitter
Nurse's twitter
Mercutio's twitter
Friar Laurence's twitter

Sources:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8615432.stm

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2010/apr/12/shakespeare-twitter-such-tweet-sorrow

http://www.news.com.au/technology/parting-is-such-tweet-sorrow-romeo-and-juliet-get-twitter-treatment/story-e6frfro0-1225852973915

http://www.rsc.org.uk/explore/projects/such-tweet-sorrow.aspx

Shylock: a Wolfish, Bloody, Inexorable Dog

The interpretation of Shylock I could draw out by reading The Merchant of Venice makes him a mere bloodthirsty villain, a stony adversary, an inhuman wretch, a misbeliever, cut-throat dog, a dog Jew, the most impenetrable cur that ever kept with men.

In the downfall of this 'damn'd, inexorable dog,' whose desires are wolfish, bloody, starved, and ravenous, even though the downfall be brought about by means of a palpable legal quibble, they wholly rejoice, agreeing with Bassanio that to do this great right it is quite justifiable to do a little wrong, if one may thereby curb this cruel devil of his will. And untroubled by any recognition of some right in wrong, of humanity in inhumanity, on the part of Shylock, they give their sympathies unreservedly to his antagonists in the play; they are content with the good Antonio's 'expectoratory method' of manifesting his distaste for this particular member of the Hebrew race; they take unalloyed delight in Jessica's marriage out of her race and religion, offering excuses for "the dry eyes - nay, laughing lips - with which she departs"; they even pass lightly over her robbery of her father's jewels and the exchange of her dead mother's betrothal ring for a monkey, and, protesting that she is daughter neither to his manners nor his blood, with Gratiano they exclaim admiringly, "by my hood, a Gentile and no Jew."

We readers, who thus interpret the play, pay little attention to the touches by which, to others, Shakespeare has humanized the character of Shylock and made his desire for revenge, if not admirable, yet, fierce as it is, comprehensible at least.

Pretty controvertial issue in The Merchant of Venice, huh?

What do you think?

REFERENCES:

Jones, R. and Franklin, T. Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice. New York. D. Appleton and Company.
Shakespeare, W. The Merchant of Venice 

R&J Love at first sight

Is it possible to fall in love with someone after a quick glance? 

After reading R&J you would say it is completely possible, but why?

Regardless their names, their families, their past, everything indeed; since Romeo looked into Juliet eyes in the Capulet's party, he knew she was the love of his life as well as Juliet.

"Romeo: Did my heart love till now? Forswear it, sight.

                              For I ne'er saw true beauty till this night."

(Romeo and Juliet Act I, Scene 5, 46)

In Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, he uses the sight as a mean to get to the heart and soul, which I would state is the purest way of knowing someone truly. Just by looking into someone's eyes, you are able to see the true identity of someone in spite of the appearances, specially between these two families of Verona that disguise each other; as can be seen through the play, 

"Capulet: It is my will, the which if thou respect,

                    Show a fair presence and put off these frowns,

                              An ill-beseeming semblance for a feast." 

(Romeo and Juliet Act I, Scene 5, 47)

In the quote given, we are able to see how important were appearances during Elizabethan times because the play was written in that era, Capulet´s intent was not to call the attention of all of his guests during the party, so that he did not care about Romeo -a Montague- being at his party and enjoying his music, his food.

Even though this couple died at the end of the play, they gave up all of their background in order to create a new church, the church of love. 

"Juliet: My only love, sprung from my only hate.

           Too early seen unknown, and known too late.

             Prodigious birth of love it is to me 

             That I must love a loathéd enemy."

                               (Romeo and Juliet Act I, Scene 5, 52)

For me, the most important scene in the play is the balcony scene, because both reduces their names, give up their last names, and they are only Romeo and Juliet, no matter who your parents are, where you come from, the only thing that really matter is that they are they, the true they, in spite of the appearances society imposed on them. 

Love at first sight is essentially intense love, so that these two characters decided to go for it, live it, nd of course die for it at the very end. But, they died for each other, showing one of the basis that love implies that is sacrifice for the other, if you are not willing to do some sort of sacrifice for your beloved one, you do not love profoundly. In the end, both show love to each other for they committed suicide once they figured out his/her behalf was not in the world of the living anymore.

William Shakespeare comes back to the theme of love at first sight in Twelfth Night, "Whoever loves, loves at first sight." 

Also, the idea of living the present time is very important in this play because they prefer to live a three-day long romance intensively rather than living a life full of lies, a life in which they wouldn´t be able to be the person they really were. They sacrificed for their love, they made their love unforgettable, intense, and mythical.

"I don´t live in either my past or my future. I´m interested only in the present, because life is the moment we´re living right now."

(Paulo Cohelo, "The Alchemist") 

All in all, I invite you to live the life you want to live, to be the person you feel more comfortable being, the one that possess your true identity; that one is YOU. 

CARPE DIEM my classmates.

References:

Cohelo, Paulo. The Alchemist. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1998.

Shakespeare, William. Romeo and Juliet. United States of America: R.R. Donnelley & Sons, 2004.

                      
                               

If you were Shakespeare…

I know we cannot change the story of Romeo and Juliet; the play has been famous for centuries as it is. However, if you had the opportunity to be William Shakespeare and change the ending of the play, what would you write?

I found an interesting answer to this question on Internet, which shows three different new endings to the story. In the first one—another tragedy—Paris kills Romeo outside the Capulet’s monument, Juliet wakes up and kills Paris, and after seeing Romeo’s corpse, she commits suicide. The second ending—the one I liked the most—shows that Friar Lawrence accompanies Juliet while she is “dead” and sends Paris home, so when Romeo arrives, the monk tells the plan to him, Juliet wakes up, and the couple has a happy life in Mantua with five children. And the last one, Juliet thinks that the idea of drinking the potion to simulate her dead is absurd; actually, she prefers to go to Mantua, dressing like a man, with Friar Lawrence in order to live with Romeo there.

Personally, I would write an ending like the second one I mentioned above, because I think the story is so tragic, and it gets on my nerves when nothing goes according to the plan. This is what I would write: Romeo receives the letter from Friar Lawrence; he realizes that Juliet is alive, so he goes back to Verona to see her; and then, they escape together and go to a peaceful place. Many years after that, they come back with their children and tell the truth to their families.

But now, the question is the following: is this story interesting? I do not think so. That is the reason why Shakespeare wrote a story full of tragedy. Mine would not be famous at all. It is your turn now; let’s see if you can create something really good as Shakespeare did.

Javiera Francisca Ramírez Cornejo :)

Source:

http://www.answers.com/Q/What_are_some_alternate_endings_to_Romeo_and_Juliet

http://www.pinterest.com/pin/520658406893032068/

The theme of Violence in Romeo and Juliet

After reviewing our history, one easily feels tempted to conclude that violence is innate to human beings. Romeo and Juliet’s Verona, for example, is a violent world whose source of violence is the feud between the Montagues and the Capulets.

 Assuming Verona is a civilized city, dialogue should have been able to solve the conflict between the two families. However, after Romeo marries Juliet, Tybalt challenges Romeo to a duel, and Romeo tries to solve things peacefully, yet his attempt results in Mercutio’s death, which proves that dialogue is unable to solve conflicts in their world. On the contrary, it actually causes more violence as Mercutio’s death infuriates Romeo so much that he ends up killing Tybalt.

Furthermore, violence in Romeo and Juliet is portrayed as universal (Resnick 1): “The quarrel is between our masters, and us their men.” This shows that both masters and servants are involved in the feud. Furthermore, when the first fight scene takes place, even common people get involved in the fight, which shows violence is universal in Verona: “Down with the Montagues! Down with the Capulets.”

Unexpectedly, violence in Verona seems to be necessary because “it pushes the story forward and makes things happen” (Violence in Romeo and Juliet), and Shakespiare turns it into a source of hope (Resnick 1): It is the deaths of Romeo and Juliet that ends the feud, as if “the only way that they [Capulets and Montagues] learn is through the horrible deaths of their children” (Resnick 1).

All of the above leads to ask ourselves whether violence is inherent to human beings or not. Although at first sight that seems to be the case, it is actually not. As a matter of fact, external stimulation is more likely to result in violent behaviors rather than internal ones (Kohn). This idea is pefectly applicable to Romeo and Juliet, as the violence taking place is caused by external reasons. For example, when Romeo kills Tybalt, he does so to avenge his friend Mercutio, which is clearly an external reason.   

So classmates, do you think violence is innate to human nature? Do you agree that although violence is bad, it gets things going in Romeo and Juliet? If not, do you think dialogue could have ended the feud instead of the deaths of Romeo and Juliet (consider the duel between Tybalt and Romeo)? I’m looking forward to reading  your answers.    

Works Cited

Kohn, Alphie. “Are Humans Innately Aggressive?” www. Alfiekohn.org. alfiekohn.org/miscellaneous/aggression.htm, June 1988. Web. 07 Sep. 2014.

Resnik, Chris. “Violence in Romeo and Juliet.” pages.towson.edu. pages.towson.edu. Web. 07 Sep. 2014.

WriteWork contributors. "Violence in 'Romeo and Juliet', Shakespeare." WriteWork.com. WriteWork.com, 04 February, 2006. Web. 07 Sep. 2014.

Shylock: a Villain or a Victim?

Does the play The Merchant of Venice ask us to sympathize with Shylock as an oppressed outsider or hate him because he is a Jew?

The play is loaded with anti-Semitism. Shylock is constantly humiliated by Antonio and mocked by the other characters. And it is the depiction of Shylock that reinforces the stereotypes of Jews as money-hungry and wicked beings. This also reflects the historical context of the Shakespeare’s times, in which the Jewish population were not allowed in England. And according to the Anti-defamation League (2006) it is probable that people from those times shared a dislike for Jewish people.

According to the Anti-defamation League (2006), the very notion of a Jew seeking Christian flesh has a long anti-Semitic history. Jews are said to have used Christian blood for religious rituals. And they killed Christ. For these reasons, the Jews were thought to be an invention of evil. Whereas in the play, Shylock is the only obstacle for the happiness of all the other characters. His villainy is specifically Jewish because he wants Antonio’s life (a Christian life). In this sense, Shylock's malice is not a quirk of his own individual character. It is specifically Jewish.

On the other hand, there are those who intend to humanize Shylock:

I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is ? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? (Shakespeare, 1987)

These lines, according to Fuller (2014), represent a request for dignity, in which “the aggrieved speaker is laying claim to the status of full and equal membership in the human family”. As a consequence, Shylock’s lack of dignity paves the way to his marginalization of society.

 Recognition is to the identity what food is to the body–indispensable. By confirming our identity and          affirming our dignity, recognition provides assurance that our membership in the group is secure. Absent  this, our survival is at risk. Without recognition, individuals may sink dignity and recognition into self-       doubt and subgroups are marginalized and primed for exploitation (Fuller, 2014).

What Shylock is trying to convey in these lines is very important because he does not only tackles serious issues that undermine Christian values, but he also justifies his disproportionate revenge: a pound of Antonio’s flesh.

  If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his  sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge! The villainy you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction (Shakespeare, 1987).

Shylock twists interpretations of the Bible and makes use of his wit to his own benefit. Thus, he appeals to justice to take revenge. However, he is the only one who loses his fortune, daughter, and religion. Is he a victim or a villain?

               

References

            Anti-Defamation League. Anti-Semitism and The Merchant of Venice: A Discussion Guide for Educators. New York: Anti- Defamation League, 2006. Retrieved September 8, 2014, from http://www.adl.org/assets/pdf/education-outreach/Merchant_Venice_Discussion_Guide.pdf

            Fuller, R. (2014, January 3). Dignity and Recognition Part 1. PsychologyToday. Retrieved September 8, 2014.

            Shakespeare, W., & Mahood, M. (1987). The merchant of Venice. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]: Cambridge University Press.

           

Romeo and Juliet – Dire Straits: an alternate cut

Have you ever wondered what would have happened if Juliet had dumped Romeo or if they had been different? Well, Dire Straits’ Mark Knopfler did! I don’t know if all of you are fond of cool rock music, but in case you are, this song is a must. Besides being a classic, this piece of greatness tell us about the things that would have occurred if Juliet had been famous and had decided to kiss-her-Romeo-goodbye forever.

The song talks about how Juliet becomes famous and decides to leave Romeo, which constitutes some sort of alternate cut of Shakespeare’s novel. To me, this song tell us the way their love story would have been different if they hadn't killed themselves and had given “their dream”—as the song says—a chance. Nevertheless, it seems their dream is over and just Juliet’s dream is the one to worth living (at least that is this Juliet's opinion), so she decided they had to grow apart. After all it seems that their love wasn't meant to be, right? Well, maybe it wasn't meant to be on Earth because, in the novel, their love made them eternal—or eternally dead.

Additionally, I would like to point out one similarity that the song has with the actual novel, and that is the fact that they came from different sides, but similar in terms of "shame": in the novel, they came from families that were enemies (the Montagues and the Capulets) and in the song, they lived in streets that were different. 

Come up on different streets, they both were streets of shame
Both dirty, both mean, yes, and the dream was just the sameAnd I dreamed your dream for you and now your dream is realHow can you look at me as if I was just another one of your deals?

What do you think, classmates? Did you like the song? What is your opinion about Mark’s version of this novel? And, finally, what do you think about the similarity I found? 

Kind regards!


Sources

Dire Straits. “Romeo and Juliet.” 27 Sept. 2009. Online Music Video. YouTube. 6 Sept. 2014.
"Romeo and Juliet". AZLyrics. Web. 6 Sept. 2014
"Romeo and Juliet (Dire Straits song)". Wikipedia. Web. 6 Sept. 2014.