Talk:Mercutio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mercutio is part of WikiProject Shakespeare, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Joking swordfight?

I can't see any evidence in the actual text that the sword-fight is "bejoking", nor that his friends think he's pretending to be wounded. Am I missing something, or is this just a popular interpretation? If it's just interpretation, that should be made clear in the article. -Justdig 12:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think so either. Anyone editing should feel free to change the article to reflect this. --SheeEttin 21:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC) i agree too
His friends do believe that he's wounded, although Benvolio seems uncertain at first, but even after Mercutio states that "tis enough [to kill me]," Romeo still believes that "the hurt cannot be much." Mercutio's friends believe he's exaggerating the seriousness of the wound, although they recognize its presence. 168.9.120.8 14:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Many movies and theatre productions also like to emphasize this scene. One version I saw had people laughing at him as if he were joking even as he fell down dead. It was a very powerful scene. Wrad 21:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Performers

I'm removing the performers section, as it appears to be fake.--Czar Yah 03:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"Reviews of Perrineau's performance were mixed. While some people found his portrayal to be powerful and moving, others believed his performance was too over-the-top and hyperactive." I'm not sure what the relevance of these sentences is. While it may be relevant on Perrineau's page, it seems to lack significance on a page about the character Mercutio. Namely, I'm sure there are thousands of performers whose performance of Mercutio could receive mixed reviews. I'll go ahead and remove the quoted text. --Jbramley 15:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Actors: read this

Just because you played a certain Shakesprarean role in a local theatre doesn't mean that your name deserves to be mentioned on this page. Thousands upon thousands have performed Shakespearean plays in local theatres across the country (and indeed the world) for hundreds of years - we can only afford to put actors of significance on this page. Nothing personal, but it needs to have at least some historical importance.

[edit] Mercury Analogy

This section is generally good, except the portion where it says their closest moment is when Mercution dies, and the subsequent speculation about the planet going too close to the sun. Is this really warranted? In the first place, the two could be closer at any moment during the play--depending on the staging of any one production. I find this comment very unhelpful. Calaf 23:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mercury Analogy

Someone wrote something regarding Mercutio's relationship to the planet Mercury which was interesting. It said that Mercury is the closest planet that revolves around the sun, and that Romeo is often referred to as the sun. Intruiging as this theoretical metaphor may be, it has no merit because Romeo is NOT referred to as "the sun" - Juliet is. (It is the east, and JULIET is the sun...) I also added Ben Affleck's performace as a Edward Alleyn in Shakespeare in Love - who in turn played Mercutio. I don't particularly like Affleck, but the film won Best Picture, so I consider it a performance of enough importance to merit inclusion on this page. Does anyone disagreee with any of this?

BeastKing89 00:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Homosexuality

There is no professional proof of this. So I removed it. --72.76.83.213 21:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I found some. So I put it back in. --BeastKing89 22:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


what is the proof? All there is is speculation that someone who uses innuendo is necessarily gay, which makes no sense at all.

The paper cited is a school essay, so is not really the most credible thing (I myself write many papers with a claim that is completely off just so that I can catch the teacher's attention and get a good grade...the reasoning within the essay itself is pretty weak)

finally, since the entire section is just saying he might be gay, or he might not be, it probably doesn't add too much to the article. We can go to every character and speculate on both sides of their homosexuality, which is pointless. 71.141.229.172 (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mercutio's death in Act III

"...is considered the pivotal turning point..." - considered by whom? -_-; That whole sentence really looks like original research to me. Can that really stand without supporting references?

Also "...signals the shift from comedy to tragedy...". While true, someone else has to say it first, in print. --Darkbane 20:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  • My 2p worth: this article doesn't quote ANY sources. There's only one footnote, and that's a link to Shaksper which isn't WP:RS. The aim shouldn't be so much to remove what's unsourced, but to find sources for everything valid we do have. AndyJones 21:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Nah, I'm not trying to remove anything (yet ^_^), just trying to raise awareness. "is considered" is bad use of English here, but the other parts need refs. --Darkbane 21:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Look, guys, all I can promise you is that I'm not making this stuff up. You're right - I do need to check my sources, and I'm working on it. Just trust me. --BeastKing89 02:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Haha. No, really, I am not insinuating that. We just have to live amicably with the OR policies, and the sooner sources appear, the better. :-) --Darkbane 02:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Citation: Homosexuality, Mercutio's death, etc.

It seems to me that the article's single citation is less a matter of well researched objectivity and more of a matter of one user finding research to push a point of view that he had already had (read above quote: "Look, guys, all I can promise you is taht I'm not making this stuff up..."

The issue is that no single point of view will ever be the "correct" point of view as Shakespeare was writing for a mass of people, high and low, gay and straight, man and woman. It imbued his work with a thick layer of ambiguity as he had to please all people all the time. The user who edited the part about Mercutio's homosexuality, I feel, is pushing an agenda as the paper which he cited (which is a paper for a college Literature class, it appears, and, I feel, hardly worthy or notable enough to be included as a legitimate source) does not come to a conclusion, it seems, but does make the case for both heterosexual and homosexual overtones.

With theatre, we are not dealing with a literature class. For some Shakespeare there are overarching philosophies of production by people who have a notable voice (Hamlet, for example: the "melancholy Dane" was a Coleridge idea of the play, while the "objective correlative" that T. S. Eliot proposed shaped Hamlet for the 20th century). As there are thousands of actors who have played these roles there are thousands upon thousands of interpretations. It is not up to us, as an encyclopedia, to interpret the play but to describe it in detail, and to source only the material that has a chance to further illuminate popular or cultural ideas about the piece. The source used, as it is an ASSIGNMENT in a COLLEGE LITERATURE COURSE, does not necessarily illuminate the popular, revolutionary or customary ideas of the theatre community.

The ASSIGNMENT also uses second hand sources that are quoted with no context for the quote. I feel that if the user really want to push his position he read Greenblatt or another Shakespearean scholar (Harold Bloom, for instance, there is NO limit to them) and source THAT material, instead of seeking out material for his own point of view.

It is good theatre because it is interpretive. But as no one point of view is right, I think we need to push this article further toward a NPOV. For each argument an equal counter-argument should be given, and SOURCES people! For God's sake SOURCES!

I sympathize with your feelings about the multiple interpretations, and sources. Of course the article needs to be developed. However, I think you're misinterpreting the actions of a good editor who was doing the best he could with what he had. Rather than reading a hidden agenda into this, please just improve the article. Let's avoid personal attacks, here. Wrad 20:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)