Romeo and Juliet is Terribly Misunderstood by Popular Perception

[Madhuri]

I don't know what Shakespeare's intention was but I really disliked the play when we studied it in high school. In particular, Romeo annoyed me to no end.

Btw I think Juliet was 14 and Romeo 19.

 

[Riverwolf]

Not from my vantage point

Well, that vantage point is inaccurate, in this case.

The only situation in which it might be accurate would be if my only exposure to Romeo and Juliet throughout my entire life is its episode of Wishbone, or some equivalent presentation. As it stands, I am quite confident in stating that my interpretation of Romeo and Juliet is more well-informed than that of your average US citizen of my generation, and so calling it "uninformed" is, itself, and uninformed statement.

You could accurately call it relatively uninformed, especially when compared to actual Shakespearean scholars. But that doesn't mean I'm unqualified to present an argument and defend it. But if you want me to retract that argument, you'll have to provide me with contextual information, such as lines from the play itself, the general interpretation of the work in its day, perhaps Shakespeare's own commentary on it, etc. That is to say, information I don't currently have, but a scholar might, that directly contradicts my argument.

 

[Riverwolf]

I don't know what Shakespeare's intention was but I really disliked the play when we studied it in high school. In particular, Romeo annoyed me to no end.

Dude is a prick, to be sure.

I'll be watching the '60s film tonight, as a refresher. I don't like the play in itself, but I recall that film being fantastic.

 

[Phil25]

So, leading from an off-topic discussion in another thread, I believe that the common perception of Romeo and Juliet is completely wrong.

The story is commonly regarded as a highly romantic story, with the love that these two people share for each other being the absolute epitome of love itself.

I find that this perception is highly inaccurate to the actual play's content, and possibly even to what Shakespeare was trying to say. It's often forgotten that the two leads are teenagers, roughly 15-16 years of age. That means, because of raging, unfamiliar hormones combined with a complete lack of proper education and training at that time to control them, they're probably not thinking very rationally, but rather almost solely based on their emotional desires.

Their "love", furthermore, when compared to the components necessary for a good, solid relationship, turns out to be severely lacking. They never really "talk" to each other, and so have no idea what common interests they share, what the other person is truly like, and whether they could commit to a lifelong relationship. Sure, they kill themselves when life tries to pull them apart, but that's not as special as one would think: living a full lifetime in a single committed relationship is far harder, far more rewarding, and far more indicative of what might be called "True Love", than suicide because of being disallowed one's desire.

In truth, their "love" turns out to not be love at all. It's extreme obsession, to the point that it got both of them killed.

Now, I don't mean to say that Romeo and Juliet is overrated. I don't particularly "like" it, myself (I prefer Shakespeare's comedies, particularly A Midsummer Night's Dream), but it does have a ton of layers to it, no less than others. I just think that the common conception is mistaken; it's not an example of True Love, or anything like that. There are other stories, before and since, that are far better "love stories". This misconception leads it to be studied improperly in school, which could be a big reason why it's so loathed by kids.

That's a big reason why I think it's important to properly understand the story, and work to undue the damage it's caused. I don't think Shakespeare would say that, in the grand scheme of things, their relationship was ultimately bad (after all, "Doth with their death bury their parents' strife."), but I don't think he would have thought of it as an "ideal romance", either.

Agree. We were studying Romeo and Juliet in my English class, and my teacher was like, no one should be able to go to college, without reading Romeo and Juliet.
I was basically sleeping the whole time.

 

[Riverwolf]

In my school it was never taught as true love but a tragedy of young impetuous love. It typically loathed by kids because of the words shakespeare uses are not common place today and take extra work to understand. So we have to read and translate it not many schools kids like extra work.

Later remakes like West side story and Romeo loves Juliet romanticize it for the general public because it sells better and that's what the average person knows because most of them never actually read the book in High School

True. Nice to see that your school studied it in that light, at least.

I didn't mean to imply that this misinterpretation is the only reason it's so loathed, but just a possible reason among many. The language is obviously the biggest factor.

...still haven't seen West Side Story. IMO, that is the best way to introduce an older story to people: modern interpretation and writing while keeping the core themes, story, and plot intact. Those interested can pursue the source material later if so inclined.

 

[Estro Felino]

Dude, tenting your pants is not love.

Tom

I fell in love with their beauty, not with their genital organs. In fact having sex with them was the last of my thoughts.
I can understand that most men think that sexuality only means "genital organs pleasure". That's why they are obsessed with pornography.
But that's an insignificant part: I enjoy more deep kissing than having sex

 

[Riverwolf]

...okay, I just came across an article that takes it even further than I did.

You

Unfortunately, I don't know if anything written about the play when it was first being preformed has survived, which would be pretty important in confirming this idea. A famine in England was indeed going on in 1586, but I can't tell if it continued on to the 1590s as the article claims. It would have been a pretty fresh memory, though. Poor people would have indeed attended his plays, as well, apparently.

Shakespeare was a master craftsman when it came to characterization. I wouldn't put this kind of interpretation beyond the realm of possibility.

 

[Estro Felino]

However the popular perfection is strongly influenced by Zeffirelli's version. I think that you should blame Zeffirelli for using a Shakespearean tragedy to create a movie which is known as the manifesto of romantic love.

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

There is no such thing as love at first sight.

Infatuation at first sight, absolutely. But the kinds of things that make one fall in love with another person - to the point where you could tolerate being with them (maybe even enjoying it sometime) takes a lot longer to figure out.

I think we cheapen true love by saying that our highschool crush was love at first sight.

But I digress...

Romeo and Juliet seems intended to be melodramatic, since that's what translates well on stage. It's also more exciting to have two crazy teenagers obsessive enough to kill themselves and a family feud that causes all kinds of bloody fun. That's what puts butts in seats. If Romeo and Juliet were really about true love, audiences would get bored fast.

:camp:

 

[StarryNightshade]

I essentially agree.

There is nothing romantic about Romeo and Juliet. There is nothing romantic about two kids who let their emotions get the best of them and, in the end, 6 people die as a result. Friends lose friends, parents lose their children, and all for the pursuit of "true love". :sarcastic

I can take it as a dark comedy, or even as a beautiful tragedy (it's very well written as a story overall), but not as the "best love story ever told".

 

[samosasauce]

No one should idealize a relationship where the lovers (and others involved) wind up dead. It doesn't make any sense.

 

[Riverwolf]

However the popular perfection is strongly influenced by Zeffirelli's version. I think that you should blame Zeffirelli for using a Shakespearean tragedy to create a movie which is known as the manifesto of romantic love.

The perception is WAY older than that.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Stories about middle-aged people killing themselves over lost love don't really work very well. Intense and unrestricted emotionality are for young people, and it's a beautiful aspect of human nature and the human experience to reflect on - especially for those of us no longer subject to inexperience and oceans of hormones.

 

[Riverwolf]

Stories about middle-aged people killing themselves over lost love don't really work very well. Intense and unrestricted emotionality are for young people, and it's a beautiful aspect of human nature and the human experience to reflect on - especially for those of us no longer subject to inexperience and oceans of hormones.

It absolutely is. Viewed as a cautionary tale, the value of R&J is quite high.

 

[Estro Felino]

The perception is WAY older than that.

Sorry,I wrote perfection instead of perception. I'm not dyslexic, btw--lol
yes, you're right. Even in the Romantic period, Jane Austen used Shakespeare as a romantic inspiration for the characters of her novels

 

[paragon]

So, leading from an off-topic discussion in another thread, I believe that the common perception of Romeo and Juliet is completely wrong.

The story is commonly regarded as a highly romantic story, with the love that these two people share for each other being the absolute epitome of love itself.

I find that this perception is highly inaccurate to the actual play's content, and possibly even to what Shakespeare was trying to say. It's often forgotten that the two leads are teenagers, roughly 15-16 years of age. That means, because of raging, unfamiliar hormones combined with a complete lack of proper education and training at that time to control them, they're probably not thinking very rationally, but rather almost solely based on their emotional desires.

Their "love", furthermore, when compared to the components necessary for a good, solid relationship, turns out to be severely lacking. They never really "talk" to each other, and so have no idea what common interests they share, what the other person is truly like, and whether they could commit to a lifelong relationship. Sure, they kill themselves when life tries to pull them apart, but that's not as special as one would think: living a full lifetime in a single committed relationship is far harder, far more rewarding, and far more indicative of what might be called "True Love", than suicide because of being disallowed one's desire.

In truth, their "love" turns out to not be love at all. It's extreme obsession, to the point that it got both of them killed.

Now, I don't mean to say that Romeo and Juliet is overrated. I don't particularly "like" it, myself (I prefer Shakespeare's comedies, particularly A Midsummer Night's Dream), but it does have a ton of layers to it, no less than others. I just think that the common conception is mistaken; it's not an example of True Love, or anything like that. There are other stories, before and since, that are far better "love stories". This misconception leads it to be studied improperly in school, which could be a big reason why it's so loathed by kids.

That's a big reason why I think it's important to properly understand the story, and work to undue the damage it's caused. I don't think Shakespeare would say that, in the grand scheme of things, their relationship was ultimately bad (after all, "Doth with their death bury their parents' strife."), but I don't think he would have thought of it as an "ideal romance", either.

Yes, exactly. And I don't think Shakespeare ever intended it to be the "ideal romance" either. Nonetheless I think it's a great play because it exposes the undesired aspects of attraction. Romeo and Juliet is a play about limerence and and obsession and the chaos birthed from the two.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So, leading from an off-topic discussion in another thread, I believe that the common perception of Romeo and Juliet is completely wrong.

The meaning of the play is given at the beginning:
"Two households, both alike in dignity,
In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.
From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life;
Whose misadventured piteous overthrows
Do with their death bury their parents' strife.
The fearful passage of their death-mark'd love,
And the continuance of their parents' rage,
Which, but their children's end, nought could remove,
Is now the two hours' traffic of our stage;
The which if you with patient ears attend,
What here shall miss, our toil shall strive to mend."

The story is commonly regarded as a highly romantic story, with the love that these two people share for each other being the absolute epitome of love itself.

It's actually more similar to Barbara Allen than it is to undying love or the quintessence of love.

It's often forgotten that the two leads are teenagers, roughly 15-16 years of age.

True. It's equally forgotten that in Shakespeare's day that means nothing.

That means, because of raging, unfamiliar hormones

..about which Shakespeare couldn't begin t understand.

Their "love", furthermore, when compared to the components necessary for a good, solid relationship, turns out to be severely lacking.

True. But romance isn't pragmatic, at least (and especially) within romantic stories.

In truth, their "love" turns out to not be love at all. It's extreme obsession, to the point that it got both of them killed.

All love (even just physical attraction) is a form of obsession. The question is not whether 'love" that is so extreme it may be diagnosed as "extreme obsession", but whether or not there is reason to distinguish between a desire for one's favorite food and one's 'true love".

A Midsummer Night's Dream

Which echoes the same sentiments as the play you critique.

That's a big reason why I think it's important to properly understand the story

So too did Shakespeare. That's why he gave the story away at the start. The story is meaningless compared to the way(s) in which it is told.

 

[paragon]

Oh, and Juliet is actually 13.

 

[Riverwolf]

The meaning of the play is given at the beginning:
"Two households, both alike in dignity,
In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.
From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life;
Whose misadventured piteous overthrows
Do with their death bury their parents' strife.
The fearful passage of their death-mark'd love,
And the continuance of their parents' rage,
Which, but their children's end, nought could remove,
Is now the two hours' traffic of our stage;
The which if you with patient ears attend,
What here shall miss, our toil shall strive to mend."

It's actually more similar to Barbara Allen than it is to undying love or the quintessence of love.

True. It's equally forgotten that in Shakespeare's day that means nothing.

..about which Shakespeare couldn't begin t understand.

True. But romance isn't pragmatic, at least (and especially) within romantic stories.

All love (even just physical attraction) is a form of obsession. The question is not whether 'love" that is so extreme it may be diagnosed as "extreme obsession", but whether or not there is reason to distinguish between a desire for one's favorite food and one's 'true love".

Which echoes the same sentiments as the play you critique.

So too did Shakespeare. That's why he gave the story away at the start. The story is meaningless compared to the way(s) in which it is told.

I honestly can't tell if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing with me. I am also quite aware that Midsummer has an echo of Romeo; Midsummer is my favorite Shakespeare play. :yes:

Since making that OP, I've been made more aware of the story that Shakespeare used for inspiration, the Tragical Hisotry of Romeus and Juliet by Arthur Brooke. That was a cautionary tale against this sort of obsessive romance.

One critic, more familiar with the Bard's work than I, suggested that while Shakespeare may have agreed with Brooke's take, he was also asking us to understand the obsession from the perspective of the lovers themselves.

 

[Estro Felino]

True. But romance isn't pragmatic, at least (and especially) within romantic stories.
All love (even just physical attraction) is a form of obsession. The question is not whether 'love" that is so extreme it may be diagnosed as "extreme obsession", but whether or not there is reason to distinguish between a desire for one's favorite food and one's 'true love"..

I don't disagree with you, but I guess Shakespeare wants people to understand that the desire you talk about is the true love. Of course romance is not pragmatic and can become obsessive; but I guess that Shakespeare, in all his tragedies (even in Hamlet) has always wanted to underline that the quality of life is better than the quantity of life.
In other words: it is better to live just your own youth authentically and then die, than to live a long life without never knowing what real love is.
So it doesn't matter if this dangerous but seducing and authentic love led those two kids to death. All that matters is that they have experimented real love.
You have to contextualize Romeo and Juliet in the complex background of Shakespeare's sonnets: they all speak of the contemplation of beauty, and that we are supposed to pick the flower of youth before its beauty fades away.
Zeffirelli did get this connection, and in fact in his Romeo and Juliet there is a beautiful song that help us understand the real meaning of the tragedy. the Lyrics of the song are:
"What is a youth? Impetuous fire. What is a maid? Ice and desire, the world wags on. A rose will bloom, it then will fade, so does a youth, so does the fairest a maid"