Can You mark this GCSE Romeo and Juliet Essay (20 marks)Watch this thread
In Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare chooses to present Tablet as the obvious villain in the play. This is shown by his violent antics and tendencies. However, there are also quotes that can show a flip side to Tybalt. A further analysis is needed to fully explore his character.
When we first meet Tybalt one of the first phrases that he says when confronted with the idea of peace is “Peace? I hate the word”. Obviously, this quote paints Tybalt as a negative and violent character. A character who dislike peace is often a cliché of a villain. However this quote has to be analysed by asking the question of, not whether or not he is a villain but, instead, how much of a villain is he? Shakespeare chooses to use the very strong word of “hate” which suggests to the audience that Tybalt is completely evil and doesn’t have a shred of goodness inside him. We can infer this because there is arguably no more of a negative word than “hate” and therefore Tybalt is at the bottom of the scale in regards to his opinions on peace. Furthermore, his hate for peace can also be seen a suggestion for his love of violence. For example, when he sees Romeo at the Capulet party, his first reaction is to get a weapon and confront Romeo in a violent manner; “Fetch me my rapier boy”. His violence is starkly contrasted by the setting of the since in which Romeo has just seen Juliet for the first time and is in a state of extreme happiness, excitement and, joy. Shakespeare has not done this by mistake. Tybalt’s violence is highlighted by the contrast to make him seem more evil and villainous. However, another view can be taken upon Tybalt’s violence. It could be argued that Tybalt is in the play to represent everything that the feud has caused and that he is not, in fact a villain but, is a result of an ancient rivalry.
Arguably, Tybalt’s worst moment, in regards to him being portrayed as a villain, is when he stabs Mercutio under the arm of Romeo. He does this when Romeo comes in between him and Mercutio fighting trying to get them to stop. This move would have been seen as very dishonourable by the audience watching at the time and would have made him seem like a coward who will do anything to win a fight. Honour was a big deal to many people during that time and therefore, not abiding by it makes Tybalt seem like a villain because it shows that he has no respect for the rules. Because it was Mercutio that he killed, the audience would have felt even more hatred towards Tybalt. Mercutio, is made to be a comical character and distracts the audience from the tragedy of the play so, him being killed makes the audience feel sympathy for him and triggers emotions of hatred towards Tybalt for taking him from the play. Perhaps Shakespeare is trying to present the fact that unnecessary violence only leads to misery and bad faith. Maybe, he is trying to show that many of the duels that people had during the time in which the play was written were useless.
Despite this, Tybalt may not be particularly, naturally, violent. This is shown when Tybalt comes to confront Romeo but, ends up facing Mercutio instead. Before the combat, Mercutio challenges Tybalt twice but, Tybalt dismisses him both times. The first time he dismisses him he says, “Peace be with you good sir”. It is only on the third challenge that Tybalt actually engages with Mercutio. Shakespeare could be showing us this to try and represent the fact that Tybalt is not actually a physcopath who seeks unnecessary violence but, is instead someone who engages in violence for a strict purpose. This is made evident by the fact that he chooses not to engage in any violence the first two times with Mercutio because he is there to fight with Romeo for showing up at the party. The only reason he fights Mercutio is because he is left with no choice. Perhaps Tybalt only fights so often because of the fact that he feels it is necessary to do so in order to keep the pride of his family from the feud. This would mean that Tybalt is not a villain but, is instead a hero in his own right and, for the Capulet’s.
In conclusion, I think that Tybalt is not represented as the villain in this play but, instead as a representation of a social construct of violence. He is also a representation of the negative results of the feud. I think that it is important not to view Tybalt as a villain because it can actually distract the reader from what his actual purpose in the play is. If anything, I think that Tybalt can be regarded as a hero of the pay who's main purpose was to try and protect his own family honour.
There are places where you could've quoted more and analysed the specific language choices to a greater extent; as a general rule, I think you should be quoting for every point you make, so that it doesn't become narrative (the essay gets a bit narrative in the penultimate paragraph - remember the point isn't to tell the story but to analyse it). You need quotations in the third paragraph, and some kind of textual evidence for your statement at the end of the second.
Also, your language gets a bit colloquial in places, and some examiners are really picky about that. "Flip side", "big deal" and "cliché" aren't really academic language; "positive side", "worrying/problematic etc." and "archetype" would be better in those contexts, I think.
For real .15marks
jk. Your essay is quite good, again as the post above said you need to use better wording and analysis from different perspectives , how could Tybalt be also seen as .
Btw. I had to laugh at the first sentence of your introduction . "TABLET" I dont know why