English 234—Intro to Shakespeare

Hosanna Krienke / October 12, 2012 Romeo and Juliet Lesson Plan

Introduction: Today we going to walk through how you get from a general topic to a specific argument. In class and in lecture, we often present you with a fully thought-out argument and you don’t necessarily see how we got there. Today, I will give you a (huge, baggy, unarguable) topic, and you will get to choose your own adventure in selecting evidence to make it a tight argument. 1. Topic: Miscommunication in Romeo and Juliet. (write on board) Pitch: As you may have noticed, this play differs strikingly from Much Ado About Nothing in that language doesn’t do what it is supposed to do. In Much Ado, witticisms are perfectly understood, double entendres are caught, and outright lies deceive perfectly. Romeo and Juliet, in contrast, ennacts a failure of language. a. Where do we see miscommunication in R+J? (write examples on board, ask for line numbers. Try to get them to think outside of major plot points. Show play is dripping in this theme. ) 1. To prompt them as they run out of ideas: When does writing fail to communicate, or communicate to the wrong person? Whose jokes fall flat? Examples: i. Prologue line 14: apologizes for any miscommunication in Prologue. ii. 1.1.1-5: Gregory doesn’t understand Sampson in the opening lines. iii. 1.1.39: Thumb-biting gesture has to be clarified, “do you bite your thumb at us, sir?” iv. 1.2.56: Peter can’t read (one miscommunication) and Romeo can’t understand his question about literacy. v. 1.4.40: Mercutio, in general, has to explain all his jokes. vi. 2.3.9: BUT even clever Mercutio doesn’t understand simple statements. Have students stay on this scene to count all the miscommunications between Mercutio, Benvolio, Romeo, and the Nurse. vii. 3.1.40-ff: Another weird misunderstanding by Mercutio—instigates fight with Tybalt because of misunderstood “consort” and “my man.” viii. 3.2.38. The Nurse tells Juliet “he” (Tybalt) is dead. J thinks it is R. ix. 3.5.141. Capulet tries to understand that Juliet refuses to marry Paris. 2. So we see that this theme is everywhere (which means that we are on to something), but this will become a problem as you try to write a paper. A paper JUST about “Miscommunication in R+J” would be awful; need to dig deeper. Within this list of miscommunications, what patterns do you see? What sub-categories can we make? (write new headings on board) a. Push students to rearrange evidence in lots of different configurations, emphasizing how evidence shifts in each version:  Class and miscommunication (focusing on literacy and Peter).  Mercutio as category of his own?  Gender.  Misread gestures.  Misheard language.  Clever wordplay that goes unnoticed.  Simple statements taken as clever wordplay. b. Evidence: Notice how changing your evidence changes your argument. New questions to consider to strengthen the patterns you find: Who in these subcategories is misunderstood? How does the communication misfire? What does this category of evidence have to say about the failure of language?

c. If you were to try to write the general miscommunication paper, it would be very hard to decide what to argue. With intentionally selected evidence, your argument is much more selfevident—can answer big questions by finding focused evidence. i. (IF THERE IS TIME): Have students think about what hypothetical paper they would write on miscommunication. What evidence would you use to narrow your scope? What kind of a claim would you try to make? Take a few minutes and write down THREE pieces of evidence from the board and write down a potential TITLE that connects them (as Professor Phillips says, your title proves you have an argument!) 3. THESIS WORKSHOP: In groups of two, show each other your thesis statements for the paper and discuss your potential argument: What evidence do you plan to use, and what connects them? Can the evidence be narrowed down? Is your argument clear? Are there exceptions to the rule?