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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?)