Shakespeare made Mercutio so sparkling and diverting that he had to kill him in order to allow the tragic focus of the play to emerge. Do you agree?

Clearly, this is debatable, meaning you could argue either side, but I will argue that Shakespeare does NOT kill off Mercutio because he is so sparkling and diverting that he detracts from the tragic focus of the play. In other words, I am disagreeing with the statement.

First, I will agree that Mercutio is witty and diverting (and sometimes obnoxious, as when he offends Juliet's maid by suggesting she is a prostitute.) But I believe Shakespeare made Mercutio such a full-bodied character so that we as an audience would understand why Romeo was close friends with him. Mercutio is not just a cardboard, place-holder "best friend" but a real person that you or I might like. Therefore, although Romeo at first tries to avoid a duel with Tybalt for good reason, as he has just married Juliet, when Tybalt kills Mercutio, we as an audience feel Romeo's pain. We know what a great guy Mercutio was and this makes it easier for us to understand why Romeo, stricken with grief and anger, kills Tybalt. After all, killing Tybalt, rationally speaking, was a very foolish thing for our young hero to do if he wanted to reconcile with his wife's family. But by making Mercutio real, Shakespeare makes us understand all the more the torn loyalties Romeo (and Juliet too when she gets upset over Tybalt's death) feel.

Of course, too, for the play to proceed down its tragic path, Romeo has to kill Tybalt and be banished. Shakespeare, unlike a lesser playwright, gives him a strong, relatable motive for doing so, ie the death of the sparkling Mercutio. This, I would argue, is part of what makes Shakespeare a great playwright: he introduces psychological realism into his plays. Further, just as an aside, it livens up the first half of the play to have Mercutio around--and Shakespeare wanted his audiences entertained.