Response to-- Beyond Comedy: Romeo and Juliet.
In the following essay by Susan Snyder, she speculates that the play of Romeo and Juliet, dubbed in its entirety a tragedy, begins in fact as a comedy. Never having considered this notion before, and now considering, it is very clear early on in the play that the characters speak and act in a lighthearted, humorous, manner. It isn't until these characters "fall" that the story of their love changes abruptly to a tragedy, and all humor comes to a halt.
Snyder describes the difference between the comedy and the tragedy in a way I have never heard before "Unlike the extrinsic, alterable laws of comedy, law in tragedy is inherit Tragic law cannot be altered and tragic time cannot be suspended." (Snyder 173).
With the limited knowledge I have of tragedy and comedy, I can best interpret that Snyder is referring to the fact that fate plays a bigger role in the tragedy than the comedy. Comedic plot is more fickle in its ultimate concluding results, while the events of a tragedy are irreversible, "they will never happen again, and one by one they move the hero closer to the end of his own personal time." (ibid) His own personal time ending is something that we are sure of in Shakespeare: the tragic Shakespearean hero always dies.
Snyder points out that the beginning of the play is indeed comedic, with the seeds of tragedy shallowly rooted. I do agree with her observation, but this could depend upon the director's interpretation of the danger levels. For instance, the director could pay and overly attentive role to the danger and sense of upcoming tragedy and make the whole play lack comedy. It would not be an entirely sad play, but it would be more serious than a director who took the beginning with a light heart and chose to make the beginning pleasant with a hint of danger.
At the end of her essay Snyder also demonstrates the peculiarity of this type of Shakespearean tragedy.
