Re: Harry’s fate according to the bookies (more literary spoilers)

[dungrollin]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" 
<justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> Carol earlier:
> > > It's something I was taught in one of my English classes in grad
> school. The teacher said that R&J followed all the conventions of a
> romantic comedy (star-crossed lovers, misunderstandings, etc.) 
except
> for the ending (and the two deaths I mentioned earlier--three,
> counting Paris, whom I'd forgotten about). Imagine Juliet waking up
> just half an hour earlier, in time to prevent Romeo's mistake. All's
> Well That Ends Well, so to speak. 
> > > 
> > 
> > Dung:
> > You mean it really *did* start out as Romeo and Ethel the 
Pirate's 
> Daughter?! Damn. And there I was thinking Norman and Stoppard were
> being brilliantly clever and original...
> >
> Carol:
> LOL. They were. 
<BIG SNIP OF INTERESTING STUFF>


Thanks ever so much for that Carol, it's really interesting. I was 
always amazed at how well Shakespeare In Love worked, I had no idea 
it had such structural support from R&J itself. As you say, though, 
there are a few deaths in R&J early on which shouldn't really be 
there if it was originally intended to be a comedy. IIRC it was Kit 
Marlowe (in SiL) who gives Will the idea for the first death, so 
perhaps the writers weren't being so clever after all. 

Ah well, there's always Rozencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, one of 
my all-time favourites. Anyone who loves Hamlet should see it, or 
read it - the film's excellent, too. 

Dungrollin
Do you want to play questions? <g>