Hello John. I am very much enjoying your de-romanticising of R+J.
This issue of Romeo's suicide, his desperation - whether motivated by impetuous youth or something else - giving rise to eternal damnation, reflects interestingly on the later tragedies,, especially King Lear. Some critics view Lear as reflecting Shakespeare at the end of his tether, depressed, played out. Yet your reading of R+J suggests Shakespeare possessed a dark view of the human situation, or at least of Elizabethan society, in the mid 1590s. Lear is bleaker overall. But when we consider the plays written around the time of R+J - Love's Labour's Lost, Midsummer Night's Dream, Richard II - we can see Shakespeare pushing the envelope in comedy, history and tragedy ... and that these genres bleed into each other in all four plays. A dark streak washes through them all, but varying to greater or lesser degrees.
Your observations suggest that R+J is the key to unpicking the overlaps and identifying their psychological and moral complexities, because it is the play the is most misread out of these four. I'm looking forward to further insights from you.
PS. Your interactions with Stanley Wells are hilarious - in a straight-faced scholarly way.
What a fantastic challenge to the status quo approach to Romeo and Juliet. You back up your thesis well, and I'd love to see a response/debate. Unfortunately, mischief appears to be in the air!
Which means that if Romeo had not succumbed to the temptations of Mischief he would not have visited the apothecary and instead wept at what he presumed was Juliet's corpse and been found alive by his love when she awoke from the potion! A very different conclusion. More: it takes strong humans to face the perils of living and we may conclude that Romeo was not really worthy of Juliet. Too bad she did not put that together before taking the knife to herself.
Moreover, it takes strong individuals to cling to life and fight the perils of living. Romeo apparently did not have this calibre of moral stamina.
It was a losing proposition from the start. Had R and J survived, been allowed to live like man and wife all too soon R’s weakness would have appeared and the marriage would have failed. Much like the marriage in AYL will fail because Orlando lacks the superb intelligence on display from Rosalind. My money’s on Beatrice and Benedict.
Indeed! Love it - thank you. Or she would have woken up—and found Paris there mourning for her and performing his "true love's rite," as it's aptly called. Appreciate your thoughts, Tom!
I wrote a swell comment BEFORE I was informed that I was a member and ergo the comment was lost. ARGGG! I'll not write it again. There's flaw in your layout when you ask for a comment BEFORE it's actually time to write one! ARGGG again.
Hi Tom. Sorry for the difficulty you had - I'm not sure I understand what happened, but can try to look into it. In any case, I would really appreciate hearing your thoughts, if you're willing to try again. Thank you, John
It's interesting to think of Mischief as an actual figure being called upon. It definitely reveals some aspect of his character. Though I think you hit upon the reasoning behind why people are misunderstanding it briefly.
Since Shakespeare's day, people have romanticized the story of Romeo and Juliet to such a degree that people view it as a beautiful love story. One that gives people reasons to refer back to it in so many ways. I was just watching a mini-series in which two teenagers refer to their love as "Romeo and Juliet like". It's obviously giving people something to believe in.
Emotionally, people prefer the idea of it being a tragic love story than a morality tale. Wherever possible, the morality tale comes in with the fact of a Capulet and Montague being unable to be together due to prejudice. It's much easier to think of it in these terms.
I think that's exactly right - ie. giving people something to believe in, and this option being easier.
As for the morality tale, what I have in mind is Friar Laurence's first soliloquy, where he suggests that there's a struggle going on inside Romeo... More to come! Thanks again Andrew for your support.
I will be looking forward to it for sure. Funny enough, I have a piece coming out about the mini-series I mentioned in my previous comment that would work well with this piece. Partly because there is something of a Romeo and Juliet type ending. Though not exactly. Perhaps I will link to this piece to encourage discussion.
That is an interesting artistic POV. So, Goya's the Black Paintings and Holocaust Death Camp pictures, other horror pictures are "beautiful." Not sure how that set of ideas could be supported and are highly contrary to some biology*, Outside of solipsism/semantics - a difficult argument, but...
To me, S-speare wordsmithing is stunningly beautiful - he was clearly a savant. Plot, characterizations, last acts? Eh...not so much. His guy characters are all a danger to themselves and others/dopes but his female characters are luminous - still, I would argue.
To me, like all his work, this is a complex story and work of art. I find 13 yr old Juliet's desperation to escape from the cannibalistic blood feuding of the fathers - S-speare's omnipresent "Bad Dad" trope - I find that writing exceptional.
How can, and I have tried, however anyone in the world talk about this work - or any of S-speare's works including poems and Sonnets - without falling into trivial pop/political tropes? The works deserve better.
To me, the works haven't even begun to be closely read and appreciated. Think of all the time on Oxfordian delusional rants, etc...
Heck, no one even reads the texts anymore - they just watch movies from the last century....zzzzzz
It is a strikingly salacious work -
"The Tragedie of Romeo and Juliet: A Frankly Annotated First Folio Edition A Frankly Annotated First Folio Edition"
* "The Evolution of Beauty: How Darwin's Forgotten Theory of Mate Choice Shapes the Animal World - and Us How Darwin's Forgotten Theory of Mate Choice Shapes the Animal World - and Us"
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with exploring Shakespeare in a pop culture sense. They all have a point being made and there’s a lot of crossover between what Shakespeare is saying and what an ordinary modern love story says.
As to how it makes sense from a biological perspective, it’s rather straight forward. Human beings find danger attractive. Have you ever seen a fire? It’s literally burning things and destroying things yet people often talk about how the flames are beautiful. They dance in the air.
Similarly, you don’t just watch tragic events once, you watch them many times. Titanic is one of the most popular movies of all time despite people knowing that the ship gets destroyed. People watch it over and over again.
Most people didn’t just watch World War movies and stories once. Despite the death and destruction we know happens. A lot of people watched the World Trade Centre Towers collapse over and over again.
This seems a personal semantic argument which is immune to discussion. Black is white and good is bad...hey... Not sure paying attention can be classified as experiencing "beauty." Neurologically, the two sets of behaviors experiences are very different - would be hard to survive otherwise.
So, this notion that dangerous and harmful things are beautiful, to me, doesn't contribute to a deeper understanding of either art or my own experience but...
Certainly, "revenger" themes were immense crowd pleasers - thank you Marlowe.
Sure, of course, by definition pop always wins, is most easily consumed and makes the most money - it is also disposable. "Pop today gone tomorrow" - usually (S-speare is an exception, there are others.).
For my time, I find it most productive to dig deeper into the artwork: the craft, the themes, contrarian ideas, other influences, etc. - fully appreciating no one else gives two hoots.
I am adapting R&J and binge reading YA author Colleen Hoover. Sure, human behavior is not infinitely complex and pretty routine and repetitive. Mating behaviors are universal and repetitive across all animal species and flora as well.
Why I have spent years close studying S-speare, and others, is the immense difference in impact - on me, and others - telling stories about the same behaviors and using the same words. How does he do that!?
Is Othello "beautiful"? Outside of the suicide-slayer theme? Is Iago "beautiful."
It’s not a personal semantic argument. This has been well documented behaviour in humans for centuries.
Tell people who are still obsessed with a TV show or movie from the 90s today and who introduce it to their kids that “Pop today gone tomorrow” is a valid statement. Or the actors from movies in the 80s like Robert Englund who appeared as Freddy Kruger in the Nightmare on Elm Street movies who still makes thousands of dollars in 2023 for his portrayal that “Pop today gone tomorrow” is a valid statement.
Tell Stan Lee who created characters in the 60s and are still being celebrated today after his passing that “Pop today gone tomorrow” is a valid statement. Billions of dollars are being made today on characters he created in the 60s. Careers have been made by people who took up his characters.
Archie Comics was made in the 50s and are still being published today.
Suicide in Shakespeare's time was a Cardinal Sin, which is different from a sin performed by a Cardinal of the Church. It meant one could not be buried in hallowed ground, in a proper church cemetery.
These were not small or incidental matter's during Romeo's lifetime.
Giving in to Desperation, not trusting in the Lord, that all things were meant to be, could go a long way to showing the rashness and impetuosity of youth, which Romeo and Juliet were, was a common error of youth. One that given time to age, to think, to gain perspective, might have avoided.
All of which still keeps the play a tragedy and not a comedy. Men at some time are masters of their fates. The fault, dear Brutus , is not in our stars, But in ourselves: Hamlet, Act I, Scene 2. Romeo may well have been sexually mature, but he had yet to grow to manhood in its ultimate flower.
If we look at the plot - as written - Romeo: kills 2 guys, gets his BFF killed in a gang fight, deflowers a 13 yr old, is banished and suicides. He is written to be a serial killer and gang-banger. Now, whatever "motivation" anyone wants to ascribe is speculative; the behavior is as written.
My read is that gang, tribal blood feuding is the driver for the harm, and still is in most cultures. Blame our chimp ancestors.
We can ask, does hate or love win? Because the love is destroyed and helpless compared to the ethnic hatred. Remember the main characters end up in pools of their own blood and vomit.
(Some might bring in the sentiment fro the Sonnets: "Desire is death." to characterize S-speare's creative vision, but not here....We could also not that Hamlet is written as a killer also "to be or not be....a murderer?)
Hello John. I am very much enjoying your de-romanticising of R+J.
This issue of Romeo's suicide, his desperation - whether motivated by impetuous youth or something else - giving rise to eternal damnation, reflects interestingly on the later tragedies,, especially King Lear. Some critics view Lear as reflecting Shakespeare at the end of his tether, depressed, played out. Yet your reading of R+J suggests Shakespeare possessed a dark view of the human situation, or at least of Elizabethan society, in the mid 1590s. Lear is bleaker overall. But when we consider the plays written around the time of R+J - Love's Labour's Lost, Midsummer Night's Dream, Richard II - we can see Shakespeare pushing the envelope in comedy, history and tragedy ... and that these genres bleed into each other in all four plays. A dark streak washes through them all, but varying to greater or lesser degrees.
Your observations suggest that R+J is the key to unpicking the overlaps and identifying their psychological and moral complexities, because it is the play the is most misread out of these four. I'm looking forward to further insights from you.
PS. Your interactions with Stanley Wells are hilarious - in a straight-faced scholarly way.
Thanks, Keith - very kind of you! So glad to have you as a reader
What a fantastic challenge to the status quo approach to Romeo and Juliet. You back up your thesis well, and I'd love to see a response/debate. Unfortunately, mischief appears to be in the air!
Found part of what I originally wrote!
Which means that if Romeo had not succumbed to the temptations of Mischief he would not have visited the apothecary and instead wept at what he presumed was Juliet's corpse and been found alive by his love when she awoke from the potion! A very different conclusion. More: it takes strong humans to face the perils of living and we may conclude that Romeo was not really worthy of Juliet. Too bad she did not put that together before taking the knife to herself.
Moreover, it takes strong individuals to cling to life and fight the perils of living. Romeo apparently did not have this calibre of moral stamina.
It was a losing proposition from the start. Had R and J survived, been allowed to live like man and wife all too soon R’s weakness would have appeared and the marriage would have failed. Much like the marriage in AYL will fail because Orlando lacks the superb intelligence on display from Rosalind. My money’s on Beatrice and Benedict.
Indeed! Love it - thank you. Or she would have woken up—and found Paris there mourning for her and performing his "true love's rite," as it's aptly called. Appreciate your thoughts, Tom!
I wrote a swell comment BEFORE I was informed that I was a member and ergo the comment was lost. ARGGG! I'll not write it again. There's flaw in your layout when you ask for a comment BEFORE it's actually time to write one! ARGGG again.
Hi Tom. Sorry for the difficulty you had - I'm not sure I understand what happened, but can try to look into it. In any case, I would really appreciate hearing your thoughts, if you're willing to try again. Thank you, John
It's interesting to think of Mischief as an actual figure being called upon. It definitely reveals some aspect of his character. Though I think you hit upon the reasoning behind why people are misunderstanding it briefly.
Since Shakespeare's day, people have romanticized the story of Romeo and Juliet to such a degree that people view it as a beautiful love story. One that gives people reasons to refer back to it in so many ways. I was just watching a mini-series in which two teenagers refer to their love as "Romeo and Juliet like". It's obviously giving people something to believe in.
Emotionally, people prefer the idea of it being a tragic love story than a morality tale. Wherever possible, the morality tale comes in with the fact of a Capulet and Montague being unable to be together due to prejudice. It's much easier to think of it in these terms.
I think that's exactly right - ie. giving people something to believe in, and this option being easier.
As for the morality tale, what I have in mind is Friar Laurence's first soliloquy, where he suggests that there's a struggle going on inside Romeo... More to come! Thanks again Andrew for your support.
I will be looking forward to it for sure. Funny enough, I have a piece coming out about the mini-series I mentioned in my previous comment that would work well with this piece. Partly because there is something of a Romeo and Juliet type ending. Though not exactly. Perhaps I will link to this piece to encourage discussion.
This is imposing pop platitudes and tropes on a brilliant - and very demanding piece of work.
S-speare deserves better....
Curious, what is "beautiful" about this story? Tween' mawkishness and hormones, while the bodies fall?
To me, S-speare is far more skilled than the 20th century Hallmark story smarm...but smarm sells....
There’s beauty in the tragedy of it all. Like a car crash is horribly beautiful. You can’t look away from it and yet you want to.
I’m reminded of an old saying, “That which is beautiful is not always good, but that which is good is always beautiful.”
That is an interesting artistic POV. So, Goya's the Black Paintings and Holocaust Death Camp pictures, other horror pictures are "beautiful." Not sure how that set of ideas could be supported and are highly contrary to some biology*, Outside of solipsism/semantics - a difficult argument, but...
To me, S-speare wordsmithing is stunningly beautiful - he was clearly a savant. Plot, characterizations, last acts? Eh...not so much. His guy characters are all a danger to themselves and others/dopes but his female characters are luminous - still, I would argue.
To me, like all his work, this is a complex story and work of art. I find 13 yr old Juliet's desperation to escape from the cannibalistic blood feuding of the fathers - S-speare's omnipresent "Bad Dad" trope - I find that writing exceptional.
How can, and I have tried, however anyone in the world talk about this work - or any of S-speare's works including poems and Sonnets - without falling into trivial pop/political tropes? The works deserve better.
To me, the works haven't even begun to be closely read and appreciated. Think of all the time on Oxfordian delusional rants, etc...
Heck, no one even reads the texts anymore - they just watch movies from the last century....zzzzzz
It is a strikingly salacious work -
"The Tragedie of Romeo and Juliet: A Frankly Annotated First Folio Edition A Frankly Annotated First Folio Edition"
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0786447486/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1
* "The Evolution of Beauty: How Darwin's Forgotten Theory of Mate Choice Shapes the Animal World - and Us How Darwin's Forgotten Theory of Mate Choice Shapes the Animal World - and Us"
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345804570/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with exploring Shakespeare in a pop culture sense. They all have a point being made and there’s a lot of crossover between what Shakespeare is saying and what an ordinary modern love story says.
As to how it makes sense from a biological perspective, it’s rather straight forward. Human beings find danger attractive. Have you ever seen a fire? It’s literally burning things and destroying things yet people often talk about how the flames are beautiful. They dance in the air.
Similarly, you don’t just watch tragic events once, you watch them many times. Titanic is one of the most popular movies of all time despite people knowing that the ship gets destroyed. People watch it over and over again.
Most people didn’t just watch World War movies and stories once. Despite the death and destruction we know happens. A lot of people watched the World Trade Centre Towers collapse over and over again.
Tragedy is beautiful even with the horror of it.
This seems a personal semantic argument which is immune to discussion. Black is white and good is bad...hey... Not sure paying attention can be classified as experiencing "beauty." Neurologically, the two sets of behaviors experiences are very different - would be hard to survive otherwise.
So, this notion that dangerous and harmful things are beautiful, to me, doesn't contribute to a deeper understanding of either art or my own experience but...
Certainly, "revenger" themes were immense crowd pleasers - thank you Marlowe.
Sure, of course, by definition pop always wins, is most easily consumed and makes the most money - it is also disposable. "Pop today gone tomorrow" - usually (S-speare is an exception, there are others.).
For my time, I find it most productive to dig deeper into the artwork: the craft, the themes, contrarian ideas, other influences, etc. - fully appreciating no one else gives two hoots.
I am adapting R&J and binge reading YA author Colleen Hoover. Sure, human behavior is not infinitely complex and pretty routine and repetitive. Mating behaviors are universal and repetitive across all animal species and flora as well.
Why I have spent years close studying S-speare, and others, is the immense difference in impact - on me, and others - telling stories about the same behaviors and using the same words. How does he do that!?
Is Othello "beautiful"? Outside of the suicide-slayer theme? Is Iago "beautiful."
It’s not a personal semantic argument. This has been well documented behaviour in humans for centuries.
Tell people who are still obsessed with a TV show or movie from the 90s today and who introduce it to their kids that “Pop today gone tomorrow” is a valid statement. Or the actors from movies in the 80s like Robert Englund who appeared as Freddy Kruger in the Nightmare on Elm Street movies who still makes thousands of dollars in 2023 for his portrayal that “Pop today gone tomorrow” is a valid statement.
Tell Stan Lee who created characters in the 60s and are still being celebrated today after his passing that “Pop today gone tomorrow” is a valid statement. Billions of dollars are being made today on characters he created in the 60s. Careers have been made by people who took up his characters.
Archie Comics was made in the 50s and are still being published today.
Suicide in Shakespeare's time was a Cardinal Sin, which is different from a sin performed by a Cardinal of the Church. It meant one could not be buried in hallowed ground, in a proper church cemetery.
These were not small or incidental matter's during Romeo's lifetime.
Giving in to Desperation, not trusting in the Lord, that all things were meant to be, could go a long way to showing the rashness and impetuosity of youth, which Romeo and Juliet were, was a common error of youth. One that given time to age, to think, to gain perspective, might have avoided.
All of which still keeps the play a tragedy and not a comedy. Men at some time are masters of their fates. The fault, dear Brutus , is not in our stars, But in ourselves: Hamlet, Act I, Scene 2. Romeo may well have been sexually mature, but he had yet to grow to manhood in its ultimate flower.
Thanks, Michael. True, no small matter at the time!
If we look at the plot - as written - Romeo: kills 2 guys, gets his BFF killed in a gang fight, deflowers a 13 yr old, is banished and suicides. He is written to be a serial killer and gang-banger. Now, whatever "motivation" anyone wants to ascribe is speculative; the behavior is as written.
My read is that gang, tribal blood feuding is the driver for the harm, and still is in most cultures. Blame our chimp ancestors.
We can ask, does hate or love win? Because the love is destroyed and helpless compared to the ethnic hatred. Remember the main characters end up in pools of their own blood and vomit.
(Some might bring in the sentiment fro the Sonnets: "Desire is death." to characterize S-speare's creative vision, but not here....We could also not that Hamlet is written as a killer also "to be or not be....a murderer?)