NationStates Jolt Archive

;) The point was, in Elizabethan society they DID deserve to die -- Juliet defied her father to be with him and OMG had sex with a man her father did not approve of!

Moral of R&J = disobey your parents and die. ;)

It should of course be noted that the events of Romeo & Juliet didn't occur in Elizabethan society, which problematizes your simple summary somewhat.

English teacher here.

is it true that all english teachers are given the big book of literature interpretations? if not, how is it that every single one of them can give you the exact same interpretation of a particular work, including very specific bits of symbolism and such?

It should of course be noted that the events of Romeo & Juliet didn't occur in Elizabethan society, which problematizes your simple summary somewhat.
The Italian names, costumes, and settings were just props... Romeo & Juliet is made by an Elizabethan for Elizabethans using language and premises that Elizabethans would understand. All of Shakespeare's works look to be Elizabethan moral stories grafted onto fanciful foreign times and places, and they all end up reflecting the society and expectations of 17th century England.

The Italian names, costumes, and settings were just props...

Agreed, but I still don't agree with your explanation of R&J. It is not that they 'deserved' to die, but that they erred from the safe path of respecting their elders and betters, and so opened up the possibility of their own destruction.

To view their deaths as something that they deserved is over-simplifying it (even viewed from an Elizabethan perspective): they chose the dangerous path and lost, but even as they were being destroyed they were being fulfilled.

gee thanks kat

if not, how is it that every single one of them can give you the exact same interpretation of a particular work, including very specific bits of symbolism and such?

...because some bits of symbolism are blindingly obvious, while others are not immediately apparent, and although they may be only perceptions overlaid by the modern reader (such as the Marxist interpretation of Wuthering Heights) they remain valid as the 'book' may have been created by the author, but the 'text' is in a constant state of re-creation each time there is a dialogue between author and reader.


EDIT: you will note that I glossed over your statement that every teacher gives the exact same interpretation of a particular work, as both you and I know that to be a blatant lie.

Agreed, but I still don't agree with your explanation of R&J. It is not that they 'deserved' to die, but that they erred from the safe path of respecting their elders and betters, and so opened up the possibility of their own destruction.

To view their deaths as something that they deserved is over-simplifying it (even viewed from an Elizabethan perspective): they chose the dangerous path and lost, but even as they were being destroyed they were being fulfilled.
I didnt try to explain Romeo n' Juliet, that was Katganistan.

But heres my vulgar (Im not a literature inclined person) two cents on the matter... I think both the "they deserved to die" and the "blazing individualists" interpretations fit well the Elizabethan time period... every society reserves a certain amount of respect for its rogues and the Elizabethan time period was exceptionally full of outstanding heroes and eccentric achievements, which were accorded outsize admiration. I agree with you that Shakespeare romanticized the suicides of RNJ and by doing so he reflected Elizabethan society's daring side while also acknowledging the simultaneous existence of strong moral standards.

It should of course be noted that the events of Romeo & Juliet didn't occur in Elizabethan society, which problematizes your simple summary somewhat.

This is true; however, it was written for Shakespeare's audience's sensibilities. Macbeth is taken from real events that happened circa 1040; the play is written for King James' court. (One of James' ancestors was a man named Banquo, who had helped Macbeth to overthrow and kill Duncan -- hmmm -- and James' interest in witchcraft and the occult led to Shakespeare including the Weird Sisters.)

Remember: when Julius Caesar was played at the Globe, it was most likely done in Elizabethan clothes, not togas.

Remember: when Julius Caesar was played at the Globe, it was most likely done in Elizabethan clothes, not togas.

Witness the striking of the anachronistic clock.

is it true that all english teachers are given the big book of literature interpretations? if not, how is it that every single one of them can give you the exact same interpretation of a particular work, including very specific bits of symbolism and such?

We are not given a big book of literature interpretations, just an education which varies (my colleagues and I disagree quite often).

I didnt try to explain Romeo n' Juliet, that was Katganistan.

Sorry about that.

But heres my vulgar (Im not a literature inclined person) two cents on the matter... I think both the "they deserved to die" and the "blazing individualists" interpretations fit well the Elizabethan time period...

With Shakespeare what we find are not simple solutions to ethical dilemmas, but interesting ethical questions being posed, and that is one of the reasons why he remains of interest. (In other words, yes, I agree).

The moral of The Merchant of Venice: Jews are greedy.

The moral of Trigun: Killing is wrong.

Nuff said.

And this is why Shakespeare is, in my opinion, a great author -- he does make one think. Especially in the tragedies, the characters' motivations are so human and reasonable, that one can understand what would drive a person who is considered good and noble to murder -- whether it be Prince Hamlet or Macbeth.

The moral of The Merchant of Venice: Jews are greedy.

Nope: this particular person, who happens to be Jewish, is greedy. What made him that way?

Nope: this particular person, who happens to be Jewish, is greedy. What made him that way?

Hardly. It's the repetition of the "Greedy Jewish banker" stereotype still in use by neo-nazis today.

The moral of The Merchant of Venice: Jews are greedy....Nuff said.

That's even more of an oversimplification than my half-joking post that R&J is about defying one's parents marking you for death.

Shylock is in some ways, every anti-Semitic sterotype you can think of. However, if you read his dialogue carefully, he is completely a product of his society and times -- he is vicious and cruel because that is how he has been treated by the Venetians and specifically, by Christians.

“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, heal’d by the same means/ warm’d and cool’d 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?” -Shylock, II.i.58.

This certainly shows his motivation for acting as he does -- he's been treated no better. I am not convinced, therefore, that Shakespeare was writing this as a celebration of Anti-Semitism -- I believe that he may have been going for the same effect as Mark Twain did later in writing Huckleberry Finn.

Hardly. It's the repetition of the "Greedy Jewish banker" stereotype still in use by neo-nazis today.

Ah, so anybody that uses a figure such as a Jew (who happens to be a banker (who also happens to be greedy)) is automatically anti-semitic? Despite the fact that such individuals do in fact exist in the real world?

If I were to write a story which used Robert Maxwell (who was Jewish, and greedy, and a businessman*) as one of the characters, would I then automatically be anti-semitic?





* close enough to being a banker for these purposes.

The moral of The Merchant of Venice: Jews are greedy.

moral is that if you persecute people over an extended period of time, they are prone to hatred. Much like modern Palestinians at the hands of the Israeli state in a somewhat cruel ironic twist.

you will note that I glossed over your statement that every teacher gives the exact same interpretation of a particular work, as both you and I know that to be a blatant lie.

exaggeration, yes. but there are only so many times you can hear (personally and through others) of various teachers completely missing the point of 'animal farm' and not get a bit suspicious.

but there are only so many times you can hear (personally and through others) of various teachers completely missing the point of 'animal farm' and not get a bit suspicious.

What exactly was "the point" of Animal Farm then?

What exactly was "the point" of Animal Farm then?

well it certainly isn't that capitalism is good, which is how i've personally seen it taught.