Romeos bad decision

[missionpossible]

This is a seminar I am going to present. It is just in point form but it would be nice if I could get some feedback on it. :)

Romeo made many of his decisions very quickly without first thinking of the consequences.
-The decision Romeo made to kill Tybalt out of anger lead to his and Juliet’s death.
Benvolio:
Here comes the furious Tybalt back again.

Romeo:
Alive in triumph, and Mercutio slain!
Away to heaven, respective lenity,
And fire-ey’d fury be my conduct now!
Now, Tybalt, take the ‘villain’ back again
That late thou gav’st me; for Mercutio’s soul
Is but a little way above our heads,
Staying for thine to keep him company:
Either thou, or I, or both, must go with him.

Tybalt:
Thou wretched boy, that didst consort him here
Shalt with him hence.

Romeo:
This shall determine that
[They fight: Tybalt falls]

Benvolio:
Romeo, away, be gone!
The citizens are up, and Tybalt slain
Stand not amaz’d: the prince will doom thee death
If thou art taken: hence, be gone, away!

Romeo:
O, I am Fortune’s fool.

-At first When Tybalt challenges Romeo to a fight he refuses to fight because he knows that he is now related to him because he is married Juliet.
-He even tries to stop the fighting between Tybalt and Mercutio
-However when Tybalt kills Mercutio Romeo suddenly loses all common sense.

“Now, Tybalt, take the ‘villain’ back again
That late thou gav’st me; for Mercutio’s soul
Is but a little way above our heads,
Staying for thine to keep him company:
Either thou, or I, or both, must go with him.

-Romeo has a suddenly changed his attitude towards fighting after Mercutio is killed
-Now, he wants to kill Tybalt out of angry
-Mercutio has just died and he is waiting for Tybalt to keep him company

“Is but a little way above our heads,
Staying for thine to keep him company”

-Romeo says he will kill Tybalt or die trying

“Either thou, or I or both, must go with him.

-Killing Tybalt was bad decision that Romeo made.
-It increased the conflict between the Motagues and the Capulets
-If Romeo had not killed Tybalt he would not have been banished from Verona
-And he an Juliet still might be alive

-After Romeo kills Tybalt he realizes that he has made a mistake although he does blame his decision on Fate or luck

“Romeo, away, be gone!
The citizens are up, and Tybalt slain
Stand not amaz’d: the prince will doom thee death
If thou art taken: hence, be gone, away!

Romeo:
O, I am Fortune’s fool.”


-“The prince will doom thee death”
-This foreshadows Romeos death later on in the play, although he does not die on the princes' order

- When Romeo say “O, I am Fortune’s fool”
- He is not taking full responsibly for his action and suggests that his bad fortune has something to do with the decision he made to kill Tybalt

- Romeos poor decision to kill Tybalt lead to his tragic down fall
[/SIZE]


Thank you!!!

[Redzeppelin]

-At first When Tybalt challenges Romeo to a fight he refuses to fight because he knows that he is now related to him because he is married Juliet.
-He even tries to stop the fighting between Tybalt and Mercutio
-However when Tybalt kills Mercutio Romeo suddenly loses all common sense.

I'm not sure I'd say he loses all common sense - his friend just got killed by a man who was insulting his [Romeo's] honor. Tybalt's words were just cause for Romeo to draw his own sword. His refusal (for reasons known only to him) aggravated Mercutio into taking up Romeo's cause (his assaulted honor) for him.




-Killing Tybalt was bad decision that Romeo made.

Maybe - but what was his choice? His friend just got killed defending his honor by a guy who insulted him?




- When Romeo say “O, I am Fortune’s fool”
- He is not taking full responsibly for his action and suggests that his bad fortune has something to do with the decision he made to kill Tybalt

Maybe. Remember that Shakespeare is not writing in the existentialist 20th century where personal responsibility is emphasized. Shakespeare's time period believed (to an extent) that fortune had a say in how people chose. There's more detailed scholarly examinations of these ideas, but Romeo's exclamation is not necessarily a smear on his character.

Thanks for sharing :)

[missionpossible]

Hi thank for the feedback
I guess I dont really understand the time period where people kill people to show respect to people that have died fighting for them(?)

I think romeo did have a choice to kill Tybalt. I mean just becuse he was temped doesnt mean it was the right thing to do. But Im not sure, did tybalt ask Romeo to fight or did Romeo ask Tybalt to fight. I think in the movie Romeo went up to Tybalt to get revenge(?)

So I guess it was ok to blame fate when anything bad happened back then right? So Romoe was just going along with what was accepted during the time. But I know( and alot of other people liveing today) that it is not "fate" so I guess would say that probably pretty much everyone liveing during that time had a problem of not taking full reposibility for there actions(;)

I dont really know! But Im supossed to be arguing that Romeo( and juliet) are responsible for their own downfall(it wasnt fate!)

:thumbs_up

[Redzeppelin]

Hi thank for the feedback
I guess I dont really understand the time period where people kill people to show respect to people that have died fighting for them(?)

Romeo didn't kill Tybalt because he wanted to show respect to Mercutio took up Romeo's legitimate quarrel. Romeo also was the indirect cause of Mercutio's death and therefore felt patially responsible. Tybalt insulted Romeo: the rules of gentle-manly behavior of this time-period demanded a response for insults.


I think romeo did have a choice to kill Tybalt. I mean just becuse he was temped doesnt mean it was the right thing to do. But Im not sure, did tybalt ask Romeo to fight or did Romeo ask Tybalt to fight. I think in the movie Romeo went up to Tybalt to get revenge(?)

I think he did too. I believe that Freewill must be involved, otherwise I think the tragic nature of the play is diminished. But fortune could favor a man, or work against him - she was "fickle" so it was a toss-up as to whether she would play for or against a man. He did choose - but he may have been "fooled" by her.



I dont really know! But Im supossed to be arguing that Romeo( and juliet) are responsible for their own downfall(it wasnt fate!)

:thumbs_up


I don't think they were "fated" to do what they did. Elizabethan drama requires the tragic hero to take a "fall" due to a character flaw - Romeo's is his impulsivity - he often acts before thinking. The elizabethan view on fate is complex - but fortune isn't necessarily fate (I think). I'd do a little searching on the topic - I'm not an expert.

Good luck

[missionpossible]

ok. thanks for your help and time!

is fortune like luck. you can have good fortune or bad fortune just like luck?

but then fate, cant be stopped if you are fated to do something then it will happen no matter what you do
oh gosh
I hope my teacher doesnt think of all the things you did!
I know.... I will talk so fast that she wont have a second to think about what I just said(;) good I dea huh....ok mabye not lol

Thnks somch!

[Redzeppelin]

is fortune like luck. you can have good fortune or bad fortune just like luck?


I think you've hit on it. Fortune is conceptualized by the medieval/renaissance mind as a woman who spins the "wheel of fortune." The tragic hero begins the play at the "top" of the wheel - but, through an action due to his tragic flaw, he takes a "fall" and eventually (usaully in Act 4) winds up at the "bottom" of the wheel. As such, you can see the element of "chance" (or luck) here. A modern name for fortune would be "lady luck."

Fate and "luck" are not the same. Fate seems more inflexible - "this is your destiny" as opposed to luck, which, as you correctly said, can change.

Good luck (ha!)