Random musings on Romeo and Juliet
Yes, I am alive. I've been reading some of my older posts and they make me cringe...to clarify, that one series I started is on hiatus for the moment, and yes, it will update, just very slowly. But that's for another time.
Anyway, I'm doing Romeo and Juliet for the Shakespeare part of my English GCSEs (both of them). It's not the greatest of Shakespeare's plays (don't know why we couldn't study, say, King Lear - yes, it is my favourite Shakespeare play - or Othello, but that's OCR being stupid...), but I'd be OK with it were it not for the fact that it's presented as, like, totally the greatest true luuuuuuuuurve story evar.
"But Romeo and Juliet is about true love!" I hear you cry (I have weird voices in my head, don't judge me). "How can you say it's not?!"
Here's why. Romeo and Juliet is not a romance: Romeo's single driving motivation is that he wants to bone Juliet. When he first sees her at the party, he's struck by her beauty. It's the only reason he's attracted to her, or at least the only reason which is apparent or indeed ever mentioned in the text. Hell, he even comments on her beauty when he thinks she's dead (and in both the Zeffirelli and Luhrmann versions, he does things with the "corpse" which are OK when done with a living being, but are just creepy with dead ones...), which is downright squicky, not romantic. Considering he's a teenage boy, that Benvolio tells him to go find a beautiful lady to look at when he's moaning about Rosaline being chaste (i.e. not putting out for guys), and that Friar Lawrence calls Romeo out on his serial crushing ("Young men's love then lies/Not truly in their hearts, but in their eyes"), it seems very likely, if not certain, that Romeo doesn't love in the sense of, say, philia (love of friends) or agape (unconditional love), but that he lusts. No matter which way you look at it, lust is not love.
Considering that the protagonists also bring their fate upon themselves by making a series of stupid decisions, which could actually have been avoided (most egregious example: Juliet not running off to Mantua with Romeo, instead choosing the risky and dangerous plan), it could just as easily have been classified as a tragedy, and actually that classification would probably fit better: the only heir to a powerful family is a wimp who falls for women like there's a shortage of them, gets attracted to his enemy's daughter, marries her less than 2 days after meeting her (even in Elizabethan times, that's still a stretch) and in the process earns the wrath of his wife's cousin, who kills his best friend, so our protagonist goes berserk and does something he really shouldn't have, then he gets exiled and wifey, instead of eloping with him, deliberately chooses the risky and dangerous plan, which ultimately gets both of them - and wifey's suitor - killed. Actually, considering how more or less everyone in the play is idiotic to varying degrees (Romeo, Juliet, Mercutio, Tybalt, Friar Lawrence, Capulet, Paris, Balthazar and the Nurse - who oddly enough is the smartest one out of that lot - are all missing a few brain cells), it could be argued that the play is a satire on pointless wars and lust, or even a satire on plot contrivances or romantic comedies. Keep in mind that the story was a cliché storm even when written - and this from the pen of "England's greatest playwright"...either he's not that great or the clichés are used satirically. Also, supporting the "satire" theory somewhat, the poem it was based on, The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet, portrayed the lovers negatively. It's possible that Shakespeare decided to turn the portrayal on its head while still keeping the negative message, thus creating a stealth parody, and a massive misaimed fandom got the wrong idea...(Yeah, way too many TV Tropes links here.)
Actually, you know what? I wouldn't mind if Romeo and Juliet were a story about two lust-filled teenagers getting killed, a tragedy, a satire, or any combination of the three. I mind it when people talk about it like it's true love. You see, that implies that their relationship was healthy and should be emulated, when really it was a lusty teenager crushing on a hot, but very sheltered girl (there's something wrong with me: I find deconstructions more interesting than tropes played straight), and everything going wrong due to a lot of idiotic choices. Here's a rundown of everything that's wrong with it.
Anyone wishing to argue with me can post a rebuttal in the comments section. I'll gladly get back to you.
Anyway, I'm doing Romeo and Juliet for the Shakespeare part of my English GCSEs (both of them). It's not the greatest of Shakespeare's plays (don't know why we couldn't study, say, King Lear - yes, it is my favourite Shakespeare play - or Othello, but that's OCR being stupid...), but I'd be OK with it were it not for the fact that it's presented as, like, totally the greatest true luuuuuuuuurve story evar.
"But Romeo and Juliet is about true love!" I hear you cry (I have weird voices in my head, don't judge me). "How can you say it's not?!"
Here's why. Romeo and Juliet is not a romance: Romeo's single driving motivation is that he wants to bone Juliet. When he first sees her at the party, he's struck by her beauty. It's the only reason he's attracted to her, or at least the only reason which is apparent or indeed ever mentioned in the text. Hell, he even comments on her beauty when he thinks she's dead (and in both the Zeffirelli and Luhrmann versions, he does things with the "corpse" which are OK when done with a living being, but are just creepy with dead ones...), which is downright squicky, not romantic. Considering he's a teenage boy, that Benvolio tells him to go find a beautiful lady to look at when he's moaning about Rosaline being chaste (i.e. not putting out for guys), and that Friar Lawrence calls Romeo out on his serial crushing ("Young men's love then lies/Not truly in their hearts, but in their eyes"), it seems very likely, if not certain, that Romeo doesn't love in the sense of, say, philia (love of friends) or agape (unconditional love), but that he lusts. No matter which way you look at it, lust is not love.
Considering that the protagonists also bring their fate upon themselves by making a series of stupid decisions, which could actually have been avoided (most egregious example: Juliet not running off to Mantua with Romeo, instead choosing the risky and dangerous plan), it could just as easily have been classified as a tragedy, and actually that classification would probably fit better: the only heir to a powerful family is a wimp who falls for women like there's a shortage of them, gets attracted to his enemy's daughter, marries her less than 2 days after meeting her (even in Elizabethan times, that's still a stretch) and in the process earns the wrath of his wife's cousin, who kills his best friend, so our protagonist goes berserk and does something he really shouldn't have, then he gets exiled and wifey, instead of eloping with him, deliberately chooses the risky and dangerous plan, which ultimately gets both of them - and wifey's suitor - killed. Actually, considering how more or less everyone in the play is idiotic to varying degrees (Romeo, Juliet, Mercutio, Tybalt, Friar Lawrence, Capulet, Paris, Balthazar and the Nurse - who oddly enough is the smartest one out of that lot - are all missing a few brain cells), it could be argued that the play is a satire on pointless wars and lust, or even a satire on plot contrivances or romantic comedies. Keep in mind that the story was a cliché storm even when written - and this from the pen of "England's greatest playwright"...either he's not that great or the clichés are used satirically. Also, supporting the "satire" theory somewhat, the poem it was based on, The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet, portrayed the lovers negatively. It's possible that Shakespeare decided to turn the portrayal on its head while still keeping the negative message, thus creating a stealth parody, and a massive misaimed fandom got the wrong idea...(Yeah, way too many TV Tropes links here.)
Actually, you know what? I wouldn't mind if Romeo and Juliet were a story about two lust-filled teenagers getting killed, a tragedy, a satire, or any combination of the three. I mind it when people talk about it like it's true love. You see, that implies that their relationship was healthy and should be emulated, when really it was a lusty teenager crushing on a hot, but very sheltered girl (there's something wrong with me: I find deconstructions more interesting than tropes played straight), and everything going wrong due to a lot of idiotic choices. Here's a rundown of everything that's wrong with it.
- You can't base true love, or any kind of long-lasting relationship, on sheer hotness, which is what Romeo seems to think - he falls for girls on the basis of looks and looks alone. Benvolio, Mercutio and Friar Lawrence all call him out on this.
- If you have a miraculous epiphany about who you love which a) takes about 5 minutes, tops and b) is based on looks, chances are it's not all that miraculous, or a good basis for a relationship.
- Being a good kisser is not the be-all and end-all of a good relationship. A more general note on all this "looks do not a relationship make" stuff I keep going on about: it's not because I'm jealous/ugly/have hang-ups about my looks, it's because it genuinely doesn't work. Talk to anyone above the age of 18 - they've probably dated at least one brainless beauty and ended the relationship out of frustration, or they know someone who has. It's not a basis for true love.
- It's not healthy to want to die for someone minutes after you've made out with them. As in, really not healthy. As in, go-take-a-cold-shower-RIGHT NOW unhealthy.
- Breaking into someone else's orchard isn't called true love, it's called being stalkerish. (It appears that after over 500 years, we still haven't quite gotten the idea.)
- It takes longer than a few hours to know that you want to marry someone out of love, and to be secure in that knowledge.
- When you start prizing your spouse of a couple of hours over your relatives, there is something very wrong at hand.
- If you're going to be joined at the hip with your lover, at least run off with them instead of staying home and making the situation worse for both of you.
- It's not healthy if you want to die for someone a few days after meeting them, even if you're in love. This point bears repeating, as ultimately trying out this behaviour in real life is unhealthy and destructive.
- If your spouse dies and all you can think about is how hot they are while dead, there's something very wrong.
- This point bears repeating. THERE IS NO POINT IN DYING IF YOUR SPOUSE/LOVER IS DEAD. You are not joined at the hip with them. Life goes on. No denying that it's hard - and there were no therapists in the 1500s, as far as I'm aware of - but it's not impossible.
- Making out with your lover's corpse is not romantic, it's creepy. Yes, even if it's still warm.
- One more time with me: Don't suicide just because your lover's not alive any more! LIVE! There are still good things in this world, so you should open your eyes to them! They would have wanted you to be happy, not moping over them!
Anyone wishing to argue with me can post a rebuttal in the comments section. I'll gladly get back to you.
Comments
Post a Comment