Romeo and Juliet
discussion
Why do people think this is a romantic book?!?
date
newest »
newest »
Why is it a "romantic" book? Because in today's lexicon a "romance" is a love story, and that's what R&J is. And, yes, they're teenagers, but in the days of Shakespeare "teenagers" didn't exist. You were a child, or you had gone through puberty and were an adult, with all the rights and responsibilities of same. You could get married, and if somebody accosted you on the street (as Paris does Romeo) you were expected to do something about it.
Christine wrote: "@ Marcy -- yes, exactly so! We all are disturbed by the suicides, but they were necessary for the greater message of the play. In modern times it is easy to dismiss it - 'silly kids' - but I do not..."I think what Shakespeare was trying to say was that good can come out of evil. That was his theme. Here you have these two families who've been feuding since who laid the chunk--probably nobody even remembers what started it any more--and they're too proud, or too invested in the situation, to give it up until these kids show them just what they're doing to themselves and each other. Afterward, they agree to make up and be friends.
This always enraged me. They were hormonal and selfish. And there were just too many mixed messaged (and missed messages) going on. It all happened in the course of just a few days, as well. Ridiculous. I actually wrote an essay my junior year of high school, breaking the play down and explaining why it is not even remotely a Love story, nor the Greatest one of all time.
Hormonal, yeah - but why is it THEM that were "selfish", rather than their stupid, worthless, petty, feuding, squabbling *families*?
Eliza wrote: "I categorize it as a tragedy. Of common sense."oh my aren't you the snarky, clever one
Imagine you loved someone so much that you would kill yourself rather than live in the world without them or to be loved so much. For most of us such a thing is impossible, so practical,jaded worn-out worldly and cynical we are. So proud of it we can't even wish to feel so deeply or to be loved so totally because if we were loved so completely we'd ask what's the catch? and think ourselves so clever.
Leslie wrote: "I had an English teacher who said that in his opinion it would have been considered more humerous in the time of Shakespeare because it would have been unthinkable for children to go against their ..."You can't be serious.
ardenFOXX wrote: "Yeah romantic. Romeo loved Roseline at first and the moment he saw Juliet he dropped the chick. To me that is very, very fickle. So that begs the question if he saw another would he do it again.B..."
AAAAHH Rosalind dumped Romeo!
Charmaine wrote: "Well, first of all, it's not a book. It's a play. And until you've seen it performed, you really haven't experienced the story. Shakespeare's plays were never meant to be read (like a book). It dri..."What about teachers who make the students read it and then have them watch a performance? Surely, you can't expect people to appreciate the play for all its merits, subtext, and plot structure by simply seeing it. They'd miss things, and also be subject to the idiosyncrasies of the production and its performers.
For example, in the Mel Gibson/Glenn Close movie version of Hamlet where Hamlet confronts his mother, the scene is incredibly sexualized in which Hamlet is practically forcing himself on his mother and Close even kisses Gibson. This is in keeping with the Freudian interpretation of the play that suggests Hamlet's angst over his mother remarrying is actually the result of his Oepidal lust for his mother and his guilt over having lost his father (whom he wanted out of the way).
Nothing in the text suggests that this is a sexualized scene, but they threw it in to illustrate this interpretation. If the children simply saw the play, they'd assume that this is what Shakespeare had in mind, and that he was no doubt a very disturbed individual :)
Holly wrote: "I think it's also important to consider it in the context of its time--most tragic plays were about large, political tragedies, and this play was special because it was a tragedy focused around som..."Brilliantly stated Holly. I know it's hard for people to understand the context and the underlying messages that SP addresses in his writings. Nothing he writes can be taken for the face value. There's always depth to what he is writing. But I understand he is not everyone's cup of tea. I enjoy the fact that he provokes thought. Is it a modern day love story? Not in any way shape or form but I still love this story.
Anna wrote: "It is romance though, a TRAGIC romance. It`s illogical, it`s passionate and some may call it stupid and it ends terribly but this doesn`t mean it`s not romantic."I wouldn't call it a romance at all. Two people naively defy authority and make illogical decisions that end up getting a bunch of people, including themselves, killed. How is that romantic? Shakespeare most likely didn't write this play as a romance. It's a dark satire about the brutal consequences of letting naiveté rule and (in Romeo's case) acting on impulse. There is no "sacrifice." Juliet did not give up her life for Romeo, nor did Romeo give up his life for Juliet. Each decided that, once the other was gone, his/her life was worthless and any purpose in living was gone.
Besides, some would argue that what Romeo and Juliet had was not love as much as it was infatuation sparked by the longing to rebel. There is the entire idea of "love at first sight," which is based completely off of appearance. That isn't love, and if it is, its foolish and naïve love, which brings us straight back to naiveté.
Sylvia wrote: "Juliet did not give up her life for Romeo, nor did Romeo give up his life for Juliet. Each decided that, once the other was gone, his/her life was worthless and any purpose in living was gone. "That's a very nice distinction that often gets lost in the romanticizing of this story.
I suppose in Juliet's case, she would have faced an arranged marriage, so things looked more bleak. Romeo, however, should have known better. He'd been around.
When you understand where Shakespeare was actually coming from, and what the attitudes of his day actually were, the play makes a lot more sense.We have to remember that, prior to the Victorian age, romantic love was considered a tragic or even horrifying thing to happen to anyone, and was viewed with suspicion and contempt. This is a cultural bridge that is exceedingly difficult for modern readers to cross. It's why so many people view elements of this play so stupidly.
First, what Shakespeare was really doing here was NOT using "love" to show the tragedy of the parents. His real point is a warning that mindless emotion--be it idiotic teenage infatuation (R&J), or murderous hatred (the rest of their families)--can have tragic consequences. The best vehicle for demonstrating the stupidity of infatuation was teenagers, because--guess what?--even back then, people thought that 14-year-olds didn't have good sense. Really! Even a 14-year-old king usually had a regent, or at least a powerful adviser who could act on his behalf when it was necessary. Really!
That Shakespeare (and other adults of his day) considered teenagers stupid means that Romeo and Juliet were not supposed to be about love, but about silliness, so he had them say what he would have considered silly, shallow and over-the-top. Why? Because these things they were saying would have had his (adult) audience members rolling their eyes at how ridiculous they were being. There's even a case to be made that the lines were a message to the audience that so much stupid had to die in a really gruesome way, so stay tuned!
This is why the "romantic" lines about the moon and the gloved hand and all the rest are not meant to be romantic but to show what morons R&J were--as stupid as their parents, but in the opposite direction. To Shakespeare and the audience of his day, so much stupid, from the parents and from the "lovers," could only end badly.
What makes the story a tragedy is that it all could have been avoided, if R&J or their families had used their brains at all.
That was Shakespeare's point.
Marcy wrote: "But why does everyone here seem to have a problem with the love story??"Because love story's build up hope that good will happen and really it won't. Tell me one person who is living the perfect life.
Lindzee wrote: "Marcy wrote: "But why does everyone here seem to have a problem with the love story??"Because love story's build up hope that good will happen and really it won't. Tell me one person who is living..."
well, the Zen argument is that everyone's life is a perfect whatever-life-it-is...
Duane wrote: "well, the Zen argument is that everyone's life is a perfect whatever-life-it-is.. ..."Ah, but perfection would never work in a Shakespearean drama!
Duane wrote: "Lindzee wrote: "Marcy wrote: "But why does everyone here seem to have a problem with the love story??"Because love story's build up hope that good will happen and really it won't. Tell me one pers..."
Whatever it is you still get too hopeful.
It sells better if you just focus on the superficial meaning. People are led to believe Romeo and Juliet is a romantic play just as Pride and Prejudice is a romantic novel.
Romeo and Juliet is about family dispute, it's about strength of character and politics, about morality. and the poetry Shakespeare put together to write about all that is precious.
It is about all those things, but it also is about love and romance.
Huh... This totally boring thread actually just got interesting...Awua wrote: "When you understand where Shakespeare was actually coming from, and what the attitudes of his day actually were, the play makes a lot more sense. We have to remember that, prior to the Victorian age, romantic love was considered a tragic or even horrifying thing to happen to anyone..."
Hmm... I'm sort of dubious about *that*, but you've got a point. I'm not sure we can even know, exactly, what "the attitudes of his day actually were", but, we *can* be pretty cartain that *we* are viewing his plays through the lens of Contemporary Whatever - i.e., however we're seeing it, it's almost certainly *Not* the way Shakespeare or *his* contemporaries did.
Lindzee wrote: "Whatever it is you still get too hopeful. ."
you know... I never thought about that, but, you've sort of swerved into something there - it's about *infatuation*. People have NEVER quit *that* - just painting a glowing portrait of whoever they've fallen head over heels for - adults and "teenagers" alike. Up until the late 1800s unmarried people basically carried on their "courtships" under the auspices of the family, and if the family didn't approve of somebody's "choice", rightly or wrongly. most of the time the "affair" got called off, unless the couple was willing to elope and take their chances on their own. So on the one hand all manner of prejudices would come into play, but on the other hand if somebody got infatuated with some loser, there was at least a stabilizing influence to warn them off, in their totally love-blind state.
nOw.. Significantly, in the case of Romeo and Juliet, because their families were at each others' throats for basically no reason at all, whether or *not* the two "kids" *were* a good match, they never even got a chance to get their choice "evaluated" by the family, because they couldn't even tell anyone about it. So they just ran amok, and the whole affair just went open-loop... and burned them both up.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/7oZwQmE...
Duane wrote: "Hmm... I'm sort of dubious about *that*, but you've got a point. I'm not sure we can even know, exactly, what "the attitudes of his day actually were ..."We can know a few things about the attitudes of Shakespeare's day -- for one, someone of Juliet's status would have been expected to marry young, marry someone rich, and produce children to keep the family's financial accumulations in tact. That was necessary of the upper class/ aristocracy. The working classes were much freer to 'fall in love' but they too were expected to marry one of their own status or a bit higher if they could.
I don't know -- maybe the attitudes are not really so different today. Many people today still want those things. In the US we don't do arranged marriages, but there are plenty of countries that do.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Yes, yes, yes. Even though I enjoy reading plays, it's as if we read the script of a movie instead of going to watch.