Romeo and Juliet
discussion
Why was the Rosaline infatuation included at all?
She was included because he wanted Romeo to appear fickle (which he is). He said Rosalind was it, his love, end of story--and then he "falls in love" with Juliet. Fickle. Rosalind was just to set up Romeo's character.
He does something more obvious in Twelfth Night, or What You Will with Duke Orsino. He is "in love with love" "It [Music/Love] came o'er my ear like the sweet sound that breathes upon a bank of violets stealing and giving odor. Enough. No more, tis not so sweet now as it was before."
Romeo is a human. Shakespeare had a tendency to show humanity in his characters. Romeo is a young attractive guy. Even in today's society, that age is very much "end of the world" dramatic. Unfortunately, both Romeo and Juliet get a little too emo and die.
I've always seen it as a way of truly showing how true and epic Romeo and Juliet's love really was, through a "comparison" of what Romeo had first and thought of as real love and then what actually was it.
Joana wrote: "I've always seen it as a way of truly showing how true and epic Romeo and Juliet's love really was, through a "comparison" of what Romeo had first and thought of as real love and then what actually..."hahaha, really? It was there to show that Romeo was fickle and childish. Teenagers can take young love so seriously, but it is really only temporary. Romeo and Juliet are not together long enough for the new to wear off.
I believe that Rosaline was included in this story to show that Romeo was a hopeless romantic, not to mention a teenage boy. He was "in love" with her for so long, and as soon as he saw Juliet, he forgot about her. It makes it all very ironic. I mean, they kill themselves for their infatuation.
Also, if Romeo wasn't pining for Rosaline, his buddy wouldn't have convinced him to go to the party at all.
Jharice wrote: Most awesome description of Romeo and Juliet ever. Do you mind if I borrow it?"Haha go ahead :)
You quoted Jaqueline in your post though, just wanna make sure you know it was me lol
I really thought that I was strange for thinking that Romeo was just an impulsive, overly dramatic, teenager who forgot all about "fair Rosalind" as soon as someone better looking came along. Glad I saw this discussion. :)
I meant "fair Rosaline"I hate auto correct!
To give the story complexity. I think it smudges the purity of the R&J romance. There are many flaws in their relationship underneath the perfection of their love, which foreshadows that their union is doomed from the start. Romeo and Juliet are impulsive, moving way too fast and incredibly impatient. Haste makes waste in their situation, because Romeo is rebounding from another relationship. If he had taken time to get over Rosaline, he may not have fallen so hard, perhaps rejected Juliet for her name, but in his passionate state, it fuels his infatuation even more. Let' s not forget, Juliet was being forced into a marriage with Paris as well. This is not to say they were not truly in love but you can wonder too. This is what makes Shakespeare so good, multilayers that can be reveled, argued, and pondered for what drives the force behind his characters.
From the time i spent studying R&J, i can remember that the language Romeo uses to speak about love changes completely when he meets Juliet, from a melodramatic style complete with oxymorons etc. to a more mature and profound imagery-based one, the purpose being to show that his love for Juliet is sincere and profound, as love can be even in the early stages of a relationship. Language aside, it also shows him to be a passionate and emotional guy, which to be fair on him are traits often found in very likable and loving if foolish young men, but which were eventually his downfall :(
Jharice wrote:Thanks :D
Sorry, my mistake, I'm a bit new and still trying to get the han..."
No worries :) I just thought that if you were thoughtful enough to ask, I would mention it lol :)
Great thread. I agree that she frames Romeo's character and lets the audience see that something is different about this new flame Juliet. Rosaline is more device than character, and for me notably effective for her absence.
Jharice wrote: "I think it was to show that, as you noted, Romeo was inconsistent and constantly 'in and out of love.' I also think that Shakespeare added it because he was mocking love and true love stories with ..." That interpretation makes sense, actually - building on the same theme as Sonnet 130. Though if that's true, his plan went badly wrong!
I always thought Rosaline was instrumental in depicting how Romeo wasn't sure of himself. First he feels as if he'd rather die than be away from Rosaline, then he sees Juliet and says he'd rather die than be away from her. He's just a kid with puppy love. That was always my interpretation. And it was also the reason I never cared much for Romeo. He was immature and waaaaaaayyyy too romantic and a little weak.
Like pretty much everybody has mentioned, I agree that Rosaline's existance showed how inconsistant Romeo was. However, my Dreamatics teacher also brought up how she was there to show how much of a romantic he was. He LIVED for the love. He was all about being in love, but also being out of love. He actually enjyoed feeling the heartbreak. That's why he pined for Rosaline so long. He wanted the "whole experience" or so to speak, and that included the infatuated phase AND the heartbreak phase.
This set him up as a vulnerable character at the beginning.
"Well, in that hit you miss: she'll not be hitWith Cupid's arrow; she hath Dian's wit;
And, in strong proof of chastity well arm'd,
From love's weak childish bow she lives unharm'd.
She will not stay the siege of loving terms,
Nor bide the encounter of assailing eyes,
Nor ope her lap to saint-seducing gold:
O, she is rich in beauty, only poor,
That when she dies with beauty dies her store."
Romeo & Juliet, Act 1, Scene 1.
I think that this is the crucial statement by Romeo on his affair with Rosaline and my understanding of it has always been that she would not sleep with him, hence the barb in the last two lines. Romeo is not just fickle he is motivated, like many a young man, by lust and this is something that Rosaline perceives and rejects him accordingly. With Juliet his motivations evolve into something more closer to love, they have to because he is willing to risk the swords of his family’s bitterest enemies just to be with her and, also important, he accepts marrying Juliet before sleeping with her which is never a consideration with Rosaline.
I think it was included to show just what the effect Juliet had on Romeo. He instantly fell madly in love with Juliet. Now I'm going to read the comments posted above mine. HAPPY READING EVERYONE! :-)
Watersheerie wrote: "I think it was to show that, as you noted, Romeo was inconsistent and constantly 'in and out of love.' I also think that Shakespeare added it because he was mocking love and true love stories with ..."I had forgotten that! Thank you for reminding me of that.
I think the inclusion of Rosaline romance as part of the introduction is more than just Shakespeare telling us that Romeo is inconsistent. He's doing a few things:First and foremost, he's playing up the English stereotype regarding Italians being emotional. That section is meant to be a little amusing for the audience who would nod and think, "Oh, those zany Italians... always falling in and out of love."
This still a powerful stereotype and one that authors continue to employ. Think of the film Moonstruck or just about every mafia movie ever made. There's always some Italian "hothead" whose behavior is based on an almost infantile emotionalism--much to the amusement of the audience.
However, he's not just employing a stereotype. He's setting up that stereotype in order to put it into play when it comes to later plot points. Romeo has to fall instantly head-over-heels in love with Juliet. That doesn't really play if Shakespeare doesn't set him up as a hopeless romantic to begin with. Imagine if one were trying to portray Hamlet, MacBeth or Othello in a love at first sight scene. That would be an epic fail.
Without a scene where Romeo is breathlessly chanting, "Ah me! How sweet is love itself possessed" we don't really buy that later scene with Juliet and the subsequent balcony scene.
However, his final purpose is more dark. Without that emotionalism, we don't have a scene where Romeo kills himself. Shakespearean characters are willing to die--many do--but suicide needs a particularly well developed basis in character. Most characters in the tragedies are willing to die, but they'll make someone else do the deed (MacBeth) or take people out with them (Hamlet) or some combination. Suicide is a special case. Othello's suicide is set up throughout the play as it is based on his pride.
Romeo's suicide is based upon his romantic, emotional nature. Love makes him the happiest creature in the world (bar one, perhaps) but losing that love does the opposite, so in the mind of the character suicide is the only solution.
Shakespeare has to set that up from the beginning of the play.
Gary wrote: "I think the inclusion of Rosaline romance as part of the introduction is more than just Shakespeare telling us that Romeo is inconsistent. He's doing a few things:First and foremost, he's playin..."
I loved what you said about the Italian stereotype of Shakespeare's day. Even more important though Italian read Popeish or Catholic.
In a day when theater was condemned by more protestant (maybe even puritan) influences, nothing could be put past those Catholics. Almost anything could still be acted on the stage provided the characters were those corrupt Catholics/Italians.
Stephen wrote: "In a day when theater was condemned by more protestant (maybe even puritan) influences, nothing could be put past those Catholics. Almost anything could still be acted on the stage provided the characters were those corrupt Catholics/Italians."Good point. There's definitely an undertone of the Catholic/Protestant thing in there. Shakespeare would have been playing with that as well.
To show that youthful affection is obsessive. Its not that Juliet was Romeo's soulmate or anything. Its just that young people fall in love hard, and are willing to die over dumb stuff.
Gary wrote: "Stephen wrote: "In a day when theater was condemned by more protestant (maybe even puritan) influences, nothing could be put past those Catholics. Almost anything could still be acted on the stage ..."Thats absurd. Catholics are the ones that usually try to kill everyone.
Gary wrote: "I think the inclusion of Rosaline romance as part of the introduction is more than just Shakespeare telling us that Romeo is inconsistent. He's doing a few things:First and foremost, he's playin..."
Nice analysis, Gary. :)
I agree with many of the above comments, but would point out that it was a meme in Shakespeare's day that male lovers were sick and distracted. Consider Suckling's poem, quite contemporary with R&J:Sir John Suckling. 1609–1642
Why so Pale and Wan?
WHY so pale and wan, fond lover?
Prithee, why so pale?
Will, when looking well can't move her,
Looking ill prevail?
Prithee, why so pale? 5
Why so dull and mute, young sinner?
Prithee, why so mute?
Will, when speaking well can't win her,
Saying nothing do 't?
Prithee, why so mute? 10
Quit, quit for shame! This will not move;
This cannot take her.
If of herself she will not love,
Nothing can make her:
The devil take her!
The Rosaline infatuation goes to show the impetuous, fickle, volatile and inconsistent nature of young love. A theme that repeats itself throughout the play.
I've always felt like Romeo was, at his core, just a teenager trying to get laid. I know that's blunt, but his primary lamentations about Rosaline are her chastity and refusing his advances. Then he claims to have found *real* love with Juliet because, well, she's willing to move forward at the insane pace he wants to move. I'm not saying he had no feelings for Juliet, but I think this whole story is about insipid, self-absorbed teenagers - not about love. Rosaline's always been kind of a hero to me for sticking to her guns. She wasn't fooled by Romeo's charms.
Stephen wrote: "Gary wrote: "I think the inclusion of Rosaline romance as part of the introduction is more than just Shakespeare telling us that Romeo is inconsistent. He's doing a few things:First and foremost..."
Yes to both! I agree and you just made this play more interesting to me. Hotheaded Italians, taking out their swords over silliness, silly Catholics, holding generational grudges and mistreating their kids, could be part of the intention.
About Romeo's suicide, could guilt be just as strong as the loss itself?
He was initially going to the Capulet party in which he met Juliet in search of her cousin Rosaline. So not only does it show how fickle he is, but she was inadvertently the catalyst to the Romeo and Juliet romance.
It is because Rosaline was not considered Romeo's 'true love' but Juliet was. Romeo put his family, reputation and life on the line for Juliet -- whereas Rosaline was just a passing fad. Rosaline was included to show the contrast of infatuation vs. true love.
To show how passionate he is.
I think it was pointless. It made for a pretty bizarre tragedy to have that tiny detail which made no sense what so ever.
Mary wrote: "I think it was pointless. It made for a pretty bizarre tragedy to have that tiny detail which made no sense what so ever."It's far from pointless,in fact it might actually be one of the most meaningful aspects of the whole play. It establishes Romeo's proclivity for infatuation that later proves to be the catalyst for both his and Juliet's deaths.
She is included in the play because her being there improves characterization and plot development. Her presence in the play and Romeo's infatuation with her epitomizes the universal theme of Love vs Lust
James wrote: "Mary wrote: "I think it was pointless. It made for a pretty bizarre tragedy to have that tiny detail which made no sense what so ever."It's far from pointless,in fact it might actually be one of..."
I think its human to be that much in love which makes the scene pointless.
Stephen wrote: "Many folks have criticized Shakespeare's Romeo for being inconstant and not knowing what he wanted because of the easy way he forgot all about his pining for Rosaline after first seeing Juliet. I..."
Stephen, i think the great goal of Shakespeare was to make Romeo a more human character, because, in the beggining, Juliet is revealed to Romeo not as true love, but as a whim, he desires her, but as an usual passion it is it grows out of the normal bareers and then we understand that Romeo was a womanizer but had changed
To show Romeo's fickleness. He's head over heels with Rosaline and then he sees Juliet and all of the sudden he's never been in love like this? Yeah, please. Shakespeare is showing the fickleness of teenage boys and teenage hormones as well as the concept of true love and love at first sight.
Jacque wrote: "To show Romeo's fickleness. He's head over heels with Rosaline and then he sees Juliet and all of the sudden he's never been in love like this? Yeah, please. Shakespeare is showing the fickleness o..."Ironically I believe that Shakespeare was such a good judge of the human character that he never held Romeo and Juliet's love as true love, but nothing greater than Romeo's original infatuation with Rosaline. Had they not killed themselves, Romeo would have been doting on a new girl before the week was over.
Excuse me while I copy-paste my year-old thesis on this very topic.'A common criticism of the play Romeo & Juliet is that the main theme, the idea that Romeo and Juliet’s love could defeat such enemies such as hate and strife, is not realistic enough. Often readers — many of them barely children themselves — claim that they cannot buy into the theme that the love of two teenagers has that power. But if so, what was Shakespeare’s point? Why tell a story of a romance if it is frail, fickle, futile? Why make two children, often blamed for their own deaths, into the heroes that brought peace to the most stubborn enemies? Why choose such a rushed love as the cause; why tie it with such mercurial forces such as fate if it was not real? Through the broad, potent spectrum of human emotion in Romeo & Juliet, it seems as if Shakespeare might be telling a different tale than what a jaded eye might catch from the surface. Perhaps this story is a lesson — that love is a force to never, ever take lightly.
'In this play, love is portrayed as a force, a real power linked inextricably to hatred, fate and death. It is described as the “teacher of society” (Stauffer) — the enemy of strife which burned Verona to its foundations and rebuilt it in less than a week. What is the one thing that could, with five fallen bodies, destroy a hatred of such intensity that its birth is not even mentioned as a factor in its life? It is only the one, immortal love of Romeo and Juliet that stays constant, purposefully juxtaposed with the turbulent emotions that compose the rest of the play (Barber and Baggett). It’s not a frail love. It’s not petty. It is love, it is death, it is hatred, it is a passion that is so intrinsically rooted into the human nature that, with a single spark, it led a boy to forgive his worst enemies and leave one of their bodies in the dust within the same hour. “O brawling love. O loving hate” (I. i. 167).
' “But,” one might say, “they were just kids — they were probably just acting off hormones — what about Rosaline?” Yes, Rosaline. Take a look at her — except that is impossible. Rosaline is never shown onstage. She represents Romeo’s understanding of love (Fleming), with quotations of the driest serenades and a parodied poetic scheme. The emotion displayed is his want for love, not love itself, and yet Romeo is criticized often for just being another dreamy-eyed child. Capulet thought similarly, dismissing Tybalt’s anger at the party for naïve rage; thinking he can simply guide his daughter into the wedding bed of a man she doesn’t want and that being a docile female youth, she would obey him. The other adult figures in the play are no different — Lady Capulet is frail and pliable, the Nurse impetuous and crude, Friar Lawrence a coward to the core. But look at thirteen-year-old Juliet. Who was the character to utter the most eloquent verse known to the English language? Juliet. Or look to Romeo. “Is love a tender thing?” (I. iv. 25) he once asked, only to answer himself as he uncovered the burial shroud of his wife. No, young Montague, it is not. It swept him and Juliet off their feet, but when it did, neither of them looked back. Just like a man. Just like a woman.
' “But what about how Romeo and how he went straight from Rosaline to Juliet just by looking at her! You can’t marry a girl you’ve just met!” No, you can’t, not in real life. But this isn’t real life. This is a play where actions are simply tugs on the puppetstrings by the master Fate, a concept the reader or watcher may not believe. This is a play where the subjects, two “star-crossed” lovers, are from the prologue tied to their doom — by none other than, again, fate (Webster). This is a play written by the same man who also wrote plays revolving around ghosts of dead fathers, around people with donkey heads, around women simply putting a hat over their hair and passing as men. Shakespeare’s are not meant to be dismissed as silly and pointless because the viewer does not believe in ghosts or does not believe fate is real. But the idea of two kids finding true love, their soulmates, a love at first sight that actually is not centered around hormones and teenage stupidity? That would never happen.
'True, Romeo & Juliet is a cautionary tale. But it is not directed in the way many think. This is a play about two young people who tampered with a force that healed a mortal wound between two families — wielding a force that is dangerous, faithful, and pure. This is a play about two martyrs who knew the ripples they would spread (could one really think Juliet killed herself not knowing her family would find her body in the arms of Romeo?), about two children who destroyed two families and raised them up again, hands intertwined, in a way that had never been seen before. This play is about the kids, sure. But is it honestly necessary to devalue the love of two young people as “just hormones”, direct it towards kids just like them and tell them the lesson is to not follow your genitalia? Perhaps it was not written that way. Perhaps it was written to those who doubt the power of an unconditional, undying love. Perhaps it is for those who underestimate the strength of young people, who think love is incomprehensible by anyone under twenty-five. Perhaps it’s for people who aren’t willing to accept that there are crazy things out there and that some of the craziest are found inside ourselves, within the hearts of the last people you would ever expect.'
James wrote: "Jacque wrote: "To show Romeo's fickleness. He's head over heels with Rosaline and then he sees Juliet and all of the sudden he's never been in love like this? Yeah, please. Shakespeare is showing t..."Exactly!
Obviously none of you have any spark of imagination. Goodbye, world. You will be sorely missed.
Sarai wrote: "Obviously none of you have any spark of imagination. Goodbye, world. You will be sorely missed."How do you mean?
Sarai wrote: "Excuse me while I copy-paste my year-old thesis on this very topic ..."Excellent thesis, Sarai! I agree.
This play was never to be dismissed as the 'raging hormones of adolescents' but rather to be looked at in bigger implications of that life-long theme: Love Conquers All. Interestingly, Shakespeare chose adolescents to portray it, which was in many ways more powerful than if he would have chosen adults.
Interestingly, Shakespeare himself was but a teenage boy when he married his one and only wife, Anne Hathaway.
The Story wasn't originally written by Shakespeare but in the form of a poem by Arthur Brooke. In Brooke's version he is a lot more damning of the deceitful way Romeo and Juliet go about their relationship. You can read the poem at the link below:http://www.canadianshakespeares.ca/fo...
Sarai wrote: "Excuse me while I copy-paste my year-old thesis on this very topic.Your thesis was very interesting Sarai - thank you for sharing it! I do agree with you. The trouble for me is that the Rosaline inclusion cheapens Romeo's love, while Juliet's love remains pure.
If Shakespeare wanted to convince the audience of the power of undying love, would it not have been more believable and powerful without the inclusion of Rosaline? Without Rosaline, would people doubt Romeo's true love for Juliet, or accuse him of being "in love with love" or fickle? As a hopeless romantic, I wish Rosaline hadn't been included.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
If that's so true, and I'd agree that it is, why was Rosaline included in the story at all? Is she there to reveal something else?