![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
"...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)
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 know wikipedia isn't supposed to be TV Tropes, (Witch is a better fucking sourse of information by the way on all the subjects they tackle) but isn't it common writing device and in movies, ect to have a "mercutio" character? Can't we add that? Sanitycult ( talk) 20:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
hiya, never one to hover 'guides walkthrough' to never do the right way anyway, so in the french translation, it says that mercutio dude is in the romantic sort of feud, and he s not rite, it s just tybalt and romeo(cant get to read the play in french), tropes? and erase me barging all you want from here ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BabsAngel ( talk • contribs) 11:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
He curses four times, three in the form of "A plague a'both your houses" and then a fourth as a simple "Your houses!" Source: Any transcript of the play ^_^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.84.246 ( talk) 12:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I commented out the two pronunciations added yesterday, neither of which is sourced and both of which are incorrect. I explained on the talk page of the editor who added them, where I also gave what I think the pronunciation should be, which is /mərˈkjuːʃioʊ/.-- Jim10701 ( talk) 10:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
In order to keep this discussion in one place so we and other editors can better follow it, I am moving posts from User talk:Wolfdog#Mercutio pronunciations and User talk:Jim10701#Mercutio onto this page, below, in the chronological order in which they were posted. I will leave a note on both our user talk pages redirecting further comments to this section on this page. Beginning with my original post on Wolfdog's page:
[Moved from User talk:Wolfdog#Mercutio pronunciations:]
[Moved from User talk:jim10701#Mercutio:]
[New comments begin here:]
Hopefully, that shows up. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, haha. Anyways, somebody made an edit that says "He is the boyfriend of Benvolio." There are probably some interpretations that say he is, but in the actual play, it said nothing about the two being in an actual relationship. This even shows up when you Google up Mercutio, and you get the little Wikipedia blurb about him. Mercutio's sexuality is completely up to interpretation, so it's not like we can make a section about it. Should I edit the sentence out, and add Benvolio to "He is a close friend of Romeo and Benvolio..."? PleaseDontTouchMyFries ( talk) 06:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Under WP:BOLD I am taking out the section intitled "Theories." It has no sources and uses the phrases "Some have theorized" and "Most believe." This subject has been occasionally debated for twelve years on this page, without sources. AlexanderSoul ( talk) 22:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
"...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)
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 know wikipedia isn't supposed to be TV Tropes, (Witch is a better fucking sourse of information by the way on all the subjects they tackle) but isn't it common writing device and in movies, ect to have a "mercutio" character? Can't we add that? Sanitycult ( talk) 20:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
hiya, never one to hover 'guides walkthrough' to never do the right way anyway, so in the french translation, it says that mercutio dude is in the romantic sort of feud, and he s not rite, it s just tybalt and romeo(cant get to read the play in french), tropes? and erase me barging all you want from here ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BabsAngel ( talk • contribs) 11:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
He curses four times, three in the form of "A plague a'both your houses" and then a fourth as a simple "Your houses!" Source: Any transcript of the play ^_^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.84.246 ( talk) 12:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I commented out the two pronunciations added yesterday, neither of which is sourced and both of which are incorrect. I explained on the talk page of the editor who added them, where I also gave what I think the pronunciation should be, which is /mərˈkjuːʃioʊ/.-- Jim10701 ( talk) 10:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
In order to keep this discussion in one place so we and other editors can better follow it, I am moving posts from User talk:Wolfdog#Mercutio pronunciations and User talk:Jim10701#Mercutio onto this page, below, in the chronological order in which they were posted. I will leave a note on both our user talk pages redirecting further comments to this section on this page. Beginning with my original post on Wolfdog's page:
[Moved from User talk:Wolfdog#Mercutio pronunciations:]
[Moved from User talk:jim10701#Mercutio:]
[New comments begin here:]
Hopefully, that shows up. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, haha. Anyways, somebody made an edit that says "He is the boyfriend of Benvolio." There are probably some interpretations that say he is, but in the actual play, it said nothing about the two being in an actual relationship. This even shows up when you Google up Mercutio, and you get the little Wikipedia blurb about him. Mercutio's sexuality is completely up to interpretation, so it's not like we can make a section about it. Should I edit the sentence out, and add Benvolio to "He is a close friend of Romeo and Benvolio..."? PleaseDontTouchMyFries ( talk) 06:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Under WP:BOLD I am taking out the section intitled "Theories." It has no sources and uses the phrases "Some have theorized" and "Most believe." This subject has been occasionally debated for twelve years on this page, without sources. AlexanderSoul ( talk) 22:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)