Romeo Did Not Love Juliet

[Romiet]

I'm sorry to burst people's bubble, but I don't buy for a second he really loved her. He was obsessed with her. He was obsessed with Rosaline before that, and I imagine with several other girls before that.

People always say how Romeo's love for Juliet was different from that with Rosaline, but I don't see it. Think of it this way, if Rosaline HAD accepted him, would he have married her? If they went through all the problems he and Juliet did, would he had done the same. I think he would.

On the other hand, had Juliet rejected him like Rosaline had, what would have happened. He would become depressed about it like he did Rosaline, until he saw some other girl he liked and gone after her. I don't believe in love at first sight, and these two never really had a single conversation except exchanging some beautiful words to one another. But that isn't love. If either of them had been intelligent enough to realize that they didn't have to kill themselves just because their spouse was dead, they would have ended up together.

This play sends a really bad message to young people.

[mir]

hm, i don't know. they made each other happy, they died together - the way they wanted, which not many people get to do - and while i agree that he may not have loved her truly, they loved as much as any two people can - even if i don't beleive in anything but contentedness beyond the first passion. and it certainly doesn't send a "bad message to young people" - what kind of message do you think it sends?! do you think kids aren't old enough to know about love, or at least what attempts to portray love? when do you think they are?

[genoveva]

This play sends a really bad message to young people.

This is a really interesting perspective on the play that I don't think I've ever considered. I'll have to read the play again with this in mind. I do agree that it is a bad message to send to young people (or anyone) to commit suicide over a loved one (or perhaps, someone you are obsessed with).

Do I think it should be banned or censored from schools? No.

It is interesting that there are two opposite views of this type of "love". A woman can love a man so much that she can't live without him. In one way, this is very respectable. She is so devoted! (In India, it is not uncommon for the wife to throw herself on the funeral pire when her husband has passed away.) On the otherhand, how weak and codependant it is for someone to give their own life over another. This example is also found in Toni Morrison's Song of Solomon. Is it an admirable trait or is it a despicable, weak action? :confused:

[ElizabethSewall]

Romiet your post made me sad... Not for me but for you because I, at least, have my beliefs.
As for the message to young people I definitely don't agree. I'm 20 and don't consider myself as an adult. Romeo and Juliet guided me, they were here when no one else was. Once I have loved so much I could have died for my beloved in the same situation. It turned out I was wrong since he was not Romeo at all. But no matter what, I don't want to live a love if it doesn't bring me strong rushes of feelings, as Romeo and Juliet must have felt. Even illusion sounds better than that...
Excuse me, I probably don't make any sense tonight... Anyway, I want to believe, above all.

[RobinHood3000]

It's true that Romeo may not have truly loved Juliet by today's standards, but you should note that by Elizabethan standards, there was relatively little distinction between love and lust. Thusly, while had the two of them met and courted in real life, it would probably be only lust, within the context of the play it can be taken as love.

There's also the fact that whenever Romeo speaks of Rosaline, he praises her with statements, whereas when he speaks of Juliet, he praises her with superlatives. Juliet isn't AS pretty as something else (as Rosaline is); she puts it to shame.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Just lust? So Romeo killed himself because he thought he wasn't going to get a shag?! Pull the other one Robin! :D

[tn2743]

"This play sends a really bad message to young people." - Romiet

You are a brave man/woman Romiet, criticising one of Shakespeare's best works with this ruthless conclusion having only provided us with about 200 words of explanation. I will accept the argument you put down, but it needs heavy reconsideration. Maybe Romeo was in love with Rosaline. Why can't he fall in love more than once? He is just a man who is capable of love. If he is capable of loving Juliet, then he must have had that capacity before he met her. The fact that he was in love before only fortifies my belief in his love for Juliet. Are you saying that Romeo's former feelings for Rosaline voids his love for Juliet? What nonsense!

They are very unfortunate young people, who fell in love when society does not allow their love. We are all governed by circumstance, aren't we? Maybe they are young and stupid, but their stupidity is given by their age. The stupidity of the society in which they were, however, is caused by so many people who had no idea what love means. If Romeo and Juliet were so naive and stupid to chose love over life, then why did their deaths bring peace to the world that forced them to die?

Anyway, whatever the message might be, teaching Shakespeare in school can only be benefitial.

Please read the play again Romiet.

PS. You didn't burst anyone's bubble. We're all believers in here :)

[Mace Sin]

I agree with Romiet. I think that Shakespeare is simply a genius, and me believing that Romeo did not really love Juliet does not change my opinion at all. It's a brilliant play, but we must not hold all things that are conspicuously, and too easily, seen to be true.

I've been taught through the course of this play that hasty youth is theme of the great work of art. Romeo and Juliet is an excellent reminder that history repeats itself, and even 400 years ago, Shakespeare still captures the immense ignorance and lightning like decisions of the youth today.

And this is coming from a fourteen year old male.

[emily655321]

I agree with Romiet and Mace. I recall having the same discussion when we read the play in my ninth grade class, in fact. Something that occurred to me then, and I've always wondered about, was whether Shakespeare didn't hold the same opinion himself? I think it makes it an even better tragedy if the violence between the families compelled their kids to act so rashly, where otherwise they may have grown apart from each other with time. The quality of the play, as far as story and writing goes, doesn't hinge on the presumption that R&J's love for each other was more than a crush. One could even ask whether it was the forbidden nature of the affair that actually perpetuated the interest beyond initial attraction. For fourteen- and seventeen-year-olds, excitement plays a big part in love.

[Scheherazade]

This reminds of a play I saw many years ago: http://www.josef-weinberger.com/weinberger/plays/play/romeo.html

It was wonderful! If you get a chance to watch/read, please do so as it looks at what could have happened if they hadn't died at the end of Shakespeare's play! :D

[RobinHood3000]

Lesse...if I were to write the sequel with the alternate ending in place, I'd say that Romeo gets a dull 9-to-5 job in Lord Capulet's insurance firm, has an affair with the Nurse after Juliet buys a chastity belt ("very good meat in Lent," after all...), and ultimately pulls a Richard Cory. The end.

[Mace Sin]

I agree with Romiet and Mace. I recall having the same discussion when we read the play in my ninth grade class, in fact. Something that occurred to me then, and I've always wondered about, was whether Shakespeare didn't hold the same opinion himself? I think it makes it an even better tragedy if the violence between the families compelled their kids to act so rashly, where otherwise they may have grown apart from each other with time. The quality of the play, as far as story and writing goes, doesn't hinge on the presumption that R&J's love for each other was more than a crush. One could even ask whether it was the forbidden nature of the affair that actually perpetuated the interest beyond initial attraction. For fourteen- and seventeen-year-olds, excitement plays a big part in love.

Well said. I think that Shakespeare knew all too well of teenage angst when he wrote the play.

History repeats itself through literature.

[Virgil]

"This play sends a really bad message to young people." - Romiet

You are a brave man/woman Romiet, criticising one of Shakespeare's best works with this ruthless conclusion having only provided us with about 200 words of explanation. I will accept the argument you put down, but it needs heavy reconsideration. Maybe Romeo was in love with Rosaline. Why can't he fall in love more than once? He is just a man who is capable of love. If he is capable of loving Juliet, then he must have had that capacity before he met her. The fact that he was in love before only fortifies my belief in his love for Juliet. Are you saying that Romeo's former feelings for Rosaline voids his love for Juliet? What nonsense!

:)
Nguyen states my opinion perfectly. So he loved Rosilind once, and then loved Juliet. I bet that happens to everyone. I've been in love more than once in my life.

[Mace Sin]

Nguyen states my opinion perfectly. So he loved Rosilind once, and then loved Juliet. I bet that happens to everyone. I've been in love more than once in my life.

But are we generalizing love here, forsaking it for mere pragmatic means--and not paving a road for the worn beliefs of the traditional? As in a poetic sense, in the play I mean,* love would be a fate described by the heavens themselves, and not the stars moving in alignment every few days, to make a way for contemporary transgressions of well-meant loving.

*I don't mean this in direct route to your personal life. "I won't attempt to explain what I don't know."

[Virgil]

But are we generalizing love here, forsaking it for mere pragmatic means--and not paving a road for the worn beliefs of the traditional? As in a poetic sense, in the play I mean,* love would be a fate described by the heavens themselves, and not the stars moving in alignment every few days, to make a way for contemporary transgressions of well-meant loving.

*I don't mean this in direct route to your personal life. "I won't attempt to explain what I don't know."
:confused: :confused: :confused:
I have no idea what you said. I'm sorry.

[tn2743]

Mace,

I'm sorry but I didn't understand you either. Are you saying that we are wrong for generalising love with our comtemporary views and not acknowledging its traditional meaning? That can be argued. But this is a totally different discussion. I was reacting to Romiet's original statement: "This play sends a really bad message to young people." This concerns the contemporary impact of the play no?

[vinide]

HEY HEY HEY
i was reading all of these arguments about Romeo loving or not loving Juliet, and loving more or not more Rosaline, and all the guys being sexually attracted or not, and death is right or not right and they give a bad message or not... and so on.
excuse me you all, but some of this seems nonsense to me.
if you write something, tonight, what are you going to write? are you going to describe carefully what the bar man does on the opposite side of the street, and state at the end what is bad to do or not?
i don't think so.
you are going to write feelings, first of all.
and your conclusions, if you are a good writer, are not written and not fully understable.
Skake is a genius, he writes wonderfully and what we should discuss about is how he penetrates characters, how he gives us the feelings he wants to show, and not if that is love or not or if that is right or wrong. who cares?
giving bad messages to young people? then read only mickey mouse.
I mean, my point is that we should not try to read in practical ways what is written in marvellous books: they are books anyhow, and they do not intend to portrait real things, but imaginary things, that can go from ideal ones like in Shake, or to mental description of very real ones like in Zola, for example. Every book has a meaning closed in what we feel reading it. There is no morality in literature.
If we start arguing if Romeo should have died or not, or whether Oliver Twist should have acted differently, then we are not discussing about literature works, we are discussing the pen that wrote them and that is not fair.

[tn2743]

Vinide,

I kind of understood what you wanted to say. But I think the point of this discussion forum is that we analyse and give our opinions about the subject raised at the beginning.

"what we should discuss about is how he penetrates characters, how he gives us the feelings he wants to show, and not if that is love or not or if that is right or wrong. who cares?" --- who are you criticising, all of us?

Btw, what was this thing about the bar man? Sorry, I am not sure what the moral of your bar man story is. And what does "understable" mean?

[genoveva]

why did their deaths bring peace to the world that forced them to die?


Again, it has been some time since I've read this play, but I do not remember any "peace to the world" that occured due to their deaths. Further, I do not think it was the world that "forced them to die". Are you, perhaps, trying to initiate a discussion on fate versus freedom of choice?

I don't see anything wrong with love or lust, nor do I see any bad influence from this play regarding love and lust. It is the act of romanticizing suicide that I can see having a possible bad influence on readers.

[tn2743]

Genoveva,

Totally agree. I might have used the wrong words back there (got carried away). What I meant to say was that Romeo and Juliet might have been irrational by choosing death, but it is because they were young and passionate, and that their world had many other irrationalities. But none of that voids Romeo's love for Juliet. (which I think you said that you agree with)

Yes, suicide is a bad message. I just didn't think that that was the point Romiet was making. I was only arguing the point above.

[genoveva]

what we should discuss about is how he penetrates characters, how he gives us the feelings he wants to show, and not if that is love or not or if that is right or wrong. who cares?

If you want to discuss how "Shakes" penetrates characters or "how he gives us the feeling he wants to show" then, I suggest you start a new thread. The original poster specifically started this thread to discuss whether or not it was possible that Shakespeare could be sending a bad message to youth in this particular play.

Obviously somebody cares.



giving bad messages to young people? then read only mickey mouse.

One could argue that Mickey Mouse gives bad messages to young people.



I mean, my point is that we should not try to read in practical ways what is written in marvellous books:

This is called critically analyzing literature.



they are books anyhow, and they do not intend to portrait real things, but imaginary things,

Some books do intend to portray real things, and other books intend to portray imaginary things.


There is no morality in literature.

I disagree.



If we start arguing if Romeo should have died or not, then we are not discussing about literature works, we are discussing the pen that wrote them and that is not fair.

It is valid to discuss the actions of characters within literature. It is valid to discuss the morality of characters or situations within literature. It is worthwile to discuss Romeo's act of killing himself. This is different from saying that Shakespeare should not have killed Romeo off in his play.


If either of them had been intelligent enough to realize that they didn't have to kill themselves just because their spouse was dead, they would have ended up together.

This play sends a really bad message to young people.

Perhaps the original poster can expound about why s/he thinks the play sends a "really bad message to young people". In the original post, there seems to be several reasons mentioned. To me, the final act of suicide can send a bad message if there is not discussion or rationalization about why this might be a bad decision to make.

[tn2743]

Yes, perhaps this would be a point worth viewing. And lets discuss it if Romiet does not return to clarify his statement.

However, I don't think that Romiet was being this precise. Because, surely, if s/he did not believe "for one second" that Romeo was in love with Juliet, then the whole play must be responsible for making bad points.

PS. I'm still hung up on that bar man story... *puzzled*

[Mace Sin]

But are we generalizing love here, forsaking it for mere pragmatic means--and not paving a road for the worn beliefs of the traditional? As in a poetic sense, in the play I mean,* love would be a fate described by the heavens themselves, and not the stars moving in alignment every few days, to make a way for contemporary transgressions of well-meant loving.

In this post that I made, I meant specifically that everyone does not have an idea of love, but that many of us can agree that it's not a hit-and-go approach. (i.e. moving from girl to girl in the span of a day such as Romeo does, and calling it "love.")

In traditional sense, love would be long process, I believe. While I don't doubt it'd be quick to rise, it should also be quick to settle at an even pace. This is traditional love, and not the mere lust that these two teenagers carry for each other. In these days, fate was predicted by simple and foolish means of astrology, yet it seems poetic in the play itself. We would scoff if people believed this in modern days, but back then it was a beautiful concept, such are the changes of civilization. A poster argued in page one that maybe Romeo really did fall in love with both of them, I doubt this extremely--and that's what I meant in my most recent statement.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Romeo is not in love with Rosalind - he just thinks he is, it is an infatuation with the idea of love. He is a young fool, knowing nothing of true love but pretending to the kind of 'courtly' love that he has read of in books. When he meets Juliet, he is hit with the real thing.

For Rosalind he writes poems and swans about bewailing his lot chastely; for Juliet he is driven mad with physical desire, prepared to kill, be exiled and eventually die. I'd say he certainly felt a little more than a passing infatuation for the girl!

See this play performed well and tell me they aren't meant to be in love. Old Shakey Bill knew what he was doing. If Romeo and Juliet weren't in love, no two characters in the history of literature ever were.

[jackyyyy]

Romeo bounced his passions off the available Rosalind, while fevering over Juliette.

Reading the comments above, I had to ask myself what love is again, and I would not pretend to know at all, but I can talk... Then, I saw the same thing with Heathcliffe, and though less idyllic as Romeo, older and seasoned in his love/hate, he must have hated Cathy with all the love in his veins.

The love chemical was too strong, it would not leave them with peace. Romeo loved Juliet. No way he would put his life for her otherwise. Yes, he could have learn't to love someone new, and by some other definition of love, but that is not the 'then'.

I think Shakespearean times had a simpler, purer view of what love is, and Shakespeare would not have wanted to clutter a story built for the masses. As other great writers, Shakespeare diplomatically left it all ambiguous - for those who prefer another result.

[ElizabethSewall]

Romeo is not in love with Rosalind - he just thinks he is, it is an infatuation with the idea of love. He is a young fool, knowing nothing of true love but pretending to the kind of 'courtly' love that he has read of in books. When he meets Juliet, he is hit with the real thing.I definitely agree. Thanks for finally showing the difference between his pretended love for Rosalind and the real, overwhelming love he was hit with when meeting fair Juliet. I don't know how there could be any doubts about it. Romeo's words are perfectly clear. His pain facing Rosalind's indifference is played. He may even try to convince himself of his love for her since the idea of not being in love is just unbearable to him. But this is nothing compared to his feelings towards Juliet. I think Shakespeare mastered his play wonderfully.

About the message of suicide, I think the real problem is society and people's stupidity, which led teenagers to death. Romeo and Juliet didn't want to die. I mean how could anyone in love want that? But their families tore them apart and they loved each other so much they couldn't bear the idea of life if not being together. I think families are to be punished more than suicide. I don't think it could have been Shakespeare's message to blame suicide or Romeo and Juliet for committing it. What is to blame is the people who led them to death, not the way they died.

The fact that their death brings peace at last emphasises the stupidity and selfishness of people. They can't stand each other before their children death. And they are responsible for it...

[The Unnamable]

Just lust? So Romeo killed himself because he thought he wasn't going to get a shag?! Pull the other one Robin! :D
What’s the matter with you, XC – have you never heard the expression “I’m dying for a shag”?

[SleepyWitch]

*confused*...
how's about if we posit something in between 'lust' and 'real love' something like 'passion'...to me, passion is what makes you physically attracted to a particular person (+ you might also be attracted to them in other ways),but you don't wanna marry them and have seven children and get a boring 9 to 5 job.

Whereas lust means you'd go for anything that has two legs as doesn't manage to jump up the nex tree on the count of three. it doesn't really matter who it is...

er, OK, now I've managed to confuse myself and forgot what it was I wanted to point out. maybe somebody else could tell us if/how my definitions relate to this thread and complete my thoughts :) :confused:

[Grumbleguts]

What’s the matter with you, XC – have you never heard the expression “I’m dying for a shag”?

Ha ha ha - Shakespeare should have used that for the title.

[The Unnamable]

lust means you'd go for anything that has two legs...
In the case of lust, I don't think you should discount the attraction some people have for amputees. :brow: What are you, some kind of legist? Nor should you favour one leg over the other. It’s neither the right leg nor the left leg that counts but something in between.

[Grumbleguts]

Legism is wrong. There should be legislation against it.

[jackyyyy]

.... so Romeo fell for and over Rosalind's nobbly kneecaps into the wandering thighs of Julliet, which were higher up in his estimation, after all,, again explains why we legit any type of love. I still cannot pin down 'love', but a brace might help.

[The Unnamable]

This thread is turning into a cross between Forrest Gump’s diary and a David Cronenberg film.

[rachel]

I really identify with Juliet and her love, her violent heart rending love for her Romeo. I have only ever been with two guys, one a forced marriage and the other was like Romeo to me. I am by nature very aloof with guys or I would be with one now. but in this instance it was just something that emotionally, physically and well I cannot describe it really.And we did go thru a similar thing, neither of us was acceptable to the other's family. period. His family does not even know my daughter exists.He died and it took a year for the pain in my heart to stop.
I think dear Romeo just knew of the 'formula' that he heard about of love which he tried to fit Rosalind in. those two would have made a terrible match for their passions were just so different, their emotional makeup did not fit like the proverbial hand in the exquisite glove.
And to me to die for that sort of love when all else is closed to you would be very natural. when others tell you you cannot love someone, when they preside as judge and jury over you and decide your destiny they murder your soul. period.
as the Prince of Verona said "all are punished."

[mir]

i've never really known "love" - since i'm only 14 and go to an all-girls school and don't meet many guys - but i think that a lot of times people feel pressured to have a boy or girlfriend just becasue everyone else does, and they might fake it if they see someone who's just pretty. Romeo might have done that with Rosalind, and loved her simply becasue he thought she looked nice and he was very melodramatic so he could say it in lots of shiny phrases. : ) i think that there really was love between Romeo and Juliet because when you have dating - which isn't love, usually - both people are pretty shy and it goes kind of awkwardly; but there was none of theat between Romeo and Juliet; they could also talk to each other without feeling self-concious, and i think that only comes from true love - when you know the other person won't laugh at you becasue they love you, or even if they do you love them so much you wouldn't care anyways. if Romeo had really loved Rosalind, he would have gone to as great lengths to get her as he did with Juliet.

[jackyyyy]

..... if Romeo had really loved Rosalind, he would have gone to as great lengths to get her as he did with Juliet.


Yes, both Romeo's and Juliet's actions fit our understandings of love... So Rosalind was only a friend, or maybe more than a friend but less than 'the love' ?

[mir]

yes - more than a friend; she was a crush; the sort of person you admire only for their looks. if Romeo had really ever spoken to her, he probably wouldn't have known what to say, because he would fear being turned down. with Juliet, he was very free about his speech; and this shows that he was willing to go to any lengths to win her, even risk being ridiculed for his love. i don't think he would have gone to such great lengths with her if she hadn't been so eloquent when they spoke. i think there's a different from someone on a pedestal - like Rosalind - and someone who you love and respect enough to never put them up on one in the first place.

and that explanation probably sucks. but . . .

[genoveva]

About the message of suicide, I think the real problem is society and people's stupidity, which led teenagers to death. Romeo and Juliet didn't want to die. I think families are to be punished more than suicide. I don't think it could have been Shakespeare's message to blame suicide or Romeo and Juliet for committing it. What is to blame is the people who led them to death, not the way they died.

The fact that their death brings peace at last emphasises the stupidity and selfishness of people.

Although I will agree that I don't think it was Shakespeare's message to blame suicide or R&J for committing suicide, I disagree with your rationale that it is society's/people's/the families' fault (poo-poo, they should be punished!) that R&J commit the act of killing themselves. And for me, this is the point where the play could potentially send a bad message to youth. The utlimate person to blame for killing oneself is the person committing the act. Yes, there are usually outside influences for the person leading up to the act of suicide, but it is a lame excuse to blame others for that act. When the youth are sent the message: "kill yourself and that will be your revenge against the cruel world or your horrible parents", I think it is destructive and untrue. The world goes on. The person who commits suicide doesn't win, they just die and loose the chance to better their situation and lead a happy life. Suicide doesn't bring peace; change in attitude and personality can more effectively bring about peace. Though I admit I am a sucker for romance even when suicide is involved (Romeo and Juliet, Sid and Nancy, etc.) I certainly wouldn't advocate for such actions.

my .02

[ElizabethSewall]

When the youth are sent the message: "kill yourself and that will be your revenge against the cruel world or your horrible parents", I think it is destructive and untrue.I don't think it was neither the message nor the point. They don't kill themselves to punish anyone, they just can't bear life if it means separation to them. Juliet was about to be married to Paris by force. And Romeo thought his beloved was dead. What happy life could be waiting in this situation?
Moreover I don't think anyone can possibly commit suicide only because he read that somewhere. People who do that aren't to blame. Pain is never to blame... And it is the choice of every human being to live or not. This may be hard to understand but some people just can't go through life but I don't think it is due to a play.
I lost one of my friends who committed suicide, and she didn't die for anything but pain, real pain. And I respect her decision, though I miss her. But it has nothing to do with exterior elements, such as a play.


Rachel my dear and sweet mum, I love you very much and admire your strength and kindness. Kisses and hugs with all my heart.

[rachel]

oh lass if cap'n stan be seeing this displays of love he be throwin me overboard. but I will risk hugging ye back and kissin yer dear beautiful head. hugs, kisses-rachel

[Xamonas Chegwe]

oh lass if cap'n stan be seeing this displays of love he be throwin me overboard. but I will risk hugging ye back and kissin yer dear beautiful head. hugs, kisses-rachel

There is a room for this kind of thing you know! You know how it upsets some people. So hugs all round and let that be an end to it. :nod:

[John Campbell]

Well, I am still a teenager and I personally have never thought about love seriously myself. But the thing is that, love at first sight is quite possible but I believe that it is what this original crush goes on to be in the very end that really matters. Maybe at first, Romeo didn't really love Juliet at all (as in he did not appreciate her characters, just her looks) and it was just pure lust that made him say that he loves her. However, the point I have to disagree with Romiet is that in the end, Romeo was willing to return to Verona from Mantua despite knowing that he was banished and would certainly be killed if he returned. What can you call this? Is this not true love? I mean, the love that two people share can only be so deep as to certain extent and Romeo was willing to risk his life just to see Juliet once more in death, most of us aren't prepared to make such sacrifices. I know that I might sound rather foolish saying all this but I am just expressing an opinion.

[RDraconis]

However, the point I have to disagree with Romiet is that in the end, Romeo was willing to return to Verona from Mantua despite knowing that he was banished and would certainly be killed if he returned. What can you call this? Is this not true love? I mean, the love that two people share can only be so deep as to certain extent and Romeo was willing to risk his life just to see Juliet once more in death, most of us aren't prepared to make such sacrifices. I know that I might sound rather foolish saying all this but I am just expressing an opinion.
If you're willing to risk everything for a bit of cocaine does that mean you and the drug share true love? I'm not saying their the same, but by the logic you used- it is.

Anyways, if he was obsessed with her- he would have done that not out of love but out of obsession. And Juliet was young, from what I could tell innocent and inexperienced. If she thought he loved her and she really liked him enough to call it love and he was willing to kill himself for her- she might feel that it was right to kill herself for him.
I don't mean actually thinking "he loves me enough to die for me, I should die for him" but just subconsciously. It's possible. I mean, women will stay with abusive men they have no real tie to because they think they love him and he loves her- there's no saying what love, real or believed, can cause.

[paledancer]

we can`t say something strict about this, I mean how can we know that? but still it may be right, sounds logical actually but I think we would ruin it if we accept this. after all, waht makes the story so lovely is that their love is unique and eternal

[RobinHood3000]

Lovely? I'm sorry, but I don't see it. They fell in love over the course of three days, slept together, and died because of their foolishness and the foolishness of those around them. The full title is "The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet" for a very specific reason.


Ahem...sorry, a bit cranky this morning, and of the firm opinion (channeling my Lit professor somewhat) that when Shakespeare makes people die, it's to indicate something went wrong. When that death is of their own accord, the fault usually lies with them.

[optimisticnad]

hear hear!
i completely and utterly agree! im a bitter old cynical woman (actually no im not) but i cant belive R&J is referred to as 'love story'. its simply not! certainly not my idea of love.

[Mrs Dickens]

Well, I disagree with you. I happen to believe that Romeo and Juliet is the greatest love story of all time. I have fallen in love with people that I shouldn't, and they have loved me... I've been there, and so honestly believe that they loved each other deeply.

My mother would have married my dad the day she first met him because she knew he was the right one for her. And they've been married almost thirty six years and are still very much in love.

So yes, I strongly believe Romeo loved Juliet, and she loved him.

[paledancer]

I didn't read the original version so I can't say something about it but even if it's not love, I think it's still something unique that nobody has ever tasted except them. at least it's expressed like this. and if Romeo's feelings are just affection, why did he kill himself (he didn't kill himself because of love for Rosaline) only love or a very very great passion can encourage someone to do such thing.

[RobinHood3000]

Well, he obviously didn't kill himself because he knew Juliet well as a person, nor did Juliet kill herself because Romeo was a well-adjusted human being. Regardless of their feelings for one another or their capacity for love, Romeo and Juliet were both rash in nearly everything they did -- the likely reason being their youth. So yes, a whirlwind romance between two teenage lovers destined never to be together makes for a lovely story. Two teenagers who see each other from across the room, try to get into bed that night, succeed the next night, and kill themselves for each other a couple days later, makes for something resembling a two-night stand. Not something unique in today's world.

Not that I wish to challenge the passion between your mom and dad -- they're very lucky, by any standards, to have been in love for so long. But there are plenty of Romeo and Juliet wannabes whose get-together and break-up are both less romantic and less theatrical.

A point of interest: unlike modern audiences, the Elizabethans made no distinction between love and lust.

[paledancer]

they were so impatient about the feelings for each other and didn't give an oppurtunity to their love to prove itself , they just couldn't stand and struggle but still, I don't think it was just a passing desire. She was different for Romeo, the purest, maybe most beautiful girl he has ever seen, (at least she seemed to him). on the other hand, I think maybe Juliet didn't love Romeo as much as Romeo loved her. she was younger than him, she was looking for love and met Romeo. when he found her dead,(more likely,when he thought she was dead) wrong or right,he dared to kill himself. I don't know the book but in a version I have watched she says something like this:"do you have any option when whom you love kills himself for you" she could have been survive and go on her life if she didn't feel guilty about him.

[bcthighs]

hm, i don't know. they made each other happy, they died together - the way they wanted, which not many people get to do - and while i agree that he may not have loved her truly, they loved as much as any two people can - even if i don't beleive in anything but contentedness beyond the first passion. and it certainly doesn't send a "bad message to young people" - what kind of message do you think it sends?! do you think kids aren't old enough to know about love, or at least what attempts to portray love? when do you think they are?

i agree. the whole point of the play is to contrast the different forms of love...theres the petrarchan form of love (romeo + rosaline), the physical side shown by the servants, mercutio and true love (romeo + juliet). Their love is so strong that they make the ultimate sacrafice for each other -- death.

[Mary Sue]

Romeo and Juliet were adolescent kids who loved each other in an immature fashion: passionately, rashly and naively, with strong emphasis on the hormones. And they made the most of the brief time they had together. Carpe diem! Without a doubt they lived out an intense romantic FANTASY. Only, how real was that fantasy and had they grown old together, would it have withstood the test of time?

Hard to say. ALL infatuations begin like theirs, hot and heavy, but such a frenzy of feeling can never last. After living together for awhile, reality sets in for even the most enamored couple. That's the "period of adjustment," when they begin to notice little flaws in each other and to argue over petty things. Romeo and Juliet died while still in the throes of young passion, without ever having to argue about the butcher's bill. The question is, how deep did their attachment really go? Was it all about sex? about being "in love with love"? about defying the parental units? Or were they actual soul mates? Had they lived to full maturity, would they have outgrown each other in just a few years? Fun to speculate, one way or the other, but we'll never really know the answer. Only Will Shakespeare might have told us...ya think?

By the way, it's a little-known fact that Shakespeare originally wrote TWO different versions of this play: one a tragedy, the other a comedy. I kid you not. And in the comic version, the lovers lived happily ever after! Apparently "The Comedy of Romeo and Juliet" would be performed onstage on alternate nights, vying with "The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet," until it became clear to the bard which version his audiences liked best. And ultimately, the one they preferred was the one we have today, the one with the sad ending!

[Mrs Dickens]

I can't believe this!!! This is a play that is over five hundred years old, looked over by many scholars and hailed as the greatest love story of all time.... I can't believe you disbelieve Juliet when she says this...

"My only love, sprung from my only hate!"

Teenagers were DIFFERENT then, they were forced to grow up quick... they didn't have time to be children. She was fourteen yet Paris had his eye on her! He wanted to marry, note the father did not entirely disagree with a man in his twenties eyeing his fourteen year old daughter. Nowadays Paris would be put in prison. But then girls married as young as twelve.

Also I think that Shakespeares people would have known the difference between lust and love. Who's to say they didn't? Were they there? No! Humans are basically the same whatever age they come from. Tudor times happens to be one of my favourite periods of history, OH, and this could be loosely based on a true story.

[RobinHood3000]

Elizabethan culture says that lust and love were likened. The 'if you weren't there, you can't talk about it' argument basically bombs the entire field of historiography.

Scholars have studied it, and people do hail it as the greatest love story of all time. The scholars studying it and the people hailing it are not the same people, however.

She's 13 -- of course Romeo's her only love, she hasn't had enough time to gain an anchor. The fact that she's the one saying she's in love (as opposed to a neutral third party) doesn't clarify anything. And I wouldn't say Paris has his EYE on Juliet, per se. Most marriages in the period of the play were mercenary, and Lord Capulet is a powerful man.

[ru36]

ok some say that romeo was not in love with juliet, but would you die with someone that you didn't love, and would you go against your parents wishes and marrie some one that they said you couldn't marrie

[cuppajoe_9]

There's something about this in the stage version of The Elephant Man, isn't there? John Merrick points out that Romeo doesn't try to revive Juliet, doesn't check for a pulse and doesn't check to see if she breathes. He just dies.

[Regit]

Regardless of their feelings for one another or their capacity for love, Romeo and Juliet were both rash in nearly everything they did -- the likely reason being their youth. I'd say the likely and very basic reason is because they are humans. Many other (older) Shakespearean characters have rash actions that lead to devastating effects. And who knows how many other reasons there might be for those. But "youth" is simply insufficient.


Two teenagers who see each other from across the room, try to get into bed that night, succeed the next night, and kill themselves for each other a couple days later. Wow, there goes literature. Maybe Shakespeare should have put it exactly like this, then his audience would understand him better? Or maybe this little story reflects but your limited understanding of the work? Who knows.


A point of interest: unlike modern audiences, the Elizabethans made no distinction between love and lust. I respectfully disagree. First of all, Shakespeare was an Elizabethan; and from his works I'd say he displayes a throrough understanding of the distinction - you don't need me to cite them, do you? I suspect he was one of many. And even earlier (ancient) philosophies show clear and complex understanding of this same distinction - you don't need me to cite them, do you? You give the "modern audience" too much credit. I think that to be credited for the death of meaning is not the time but the fact that majority of audiences of any period have little capacity or interest for understanding. Thank goodness for the other ones.

[RobinHood3000]

First of all, when I said "Elizabethans," I was referring to the audiences -- Shakespeare is special.

Second, you may be right -- now that I think about it, the fact that Elizabethan audiences preferred to see the young lovers die rather than live (much akin to Jason Todd, actually) indicates with some clarity what they thought about Romeo and Juliet's actions.

The brute-force synapsis was meant to counter the excessive romanticization of a play that is, at heart, a tragedy.

And true, other Shakespearean characters behave rashly, but each has a reason. Othello is insecure. Macbeth is somewhat power-hungry. Hamlet...well, Hamlet's rashness was delayed, therein lying the problem. For Romeo and Juliet, they have little reason for rashness other than being either swept up in a whirlwind romance that ends badly, or young. Pick one, or suggest another.

[Regit]

First of all, when I said "Elizabethans," I was referring to the audiences -- Shakespeare is special. This word "special" here is a little dubious, don't you find? I don't think the fact that Shakespeare writes disqualifies him as an audience. And there were many brilliant writers that were audiences of Shakespeare's also. How is Shakespeare so "special" that you don't count his wisdom here? If we're talking about the meaning of the play, shouldn't it be the most important? And if you exclude any audience with "special" understandings, wouldn't that be the proof that the rest of the "Elizabethans" are wrong about Romeo and Juliet (if they indeed agree with you)? Remember, we're talking literature.


Second, you may be right -- now that I think about it, the fact that Elizabethan audiences preferred to see the young lovers die rather than live (much akin to Jason Todd, actually) indicates with some clarity what they thought about Romeo and Juliet's actions. Well, I didn't need this or any other evidence to be convinced that Elizabethan audience "thought about Romeo and Juliet's actions". Sure they thought about it; one of them composed it. I don't think thinking is a quality belonging to the modern audience more than to the Elizabethan (especially if you exclude "special" audiences); in fact, with the rapid increase in population, the probability of the opposite case might even be higher.


The brute-force synapsis was meant to counter the excessive romanticization of a play that is, at heart, a tragedy. I'm sorry for misunderstanding your attack; but imagine the play, its author, and its intellectual audience are much more offended by it than the "excessive romanticization", whatever that is. And since we're on the subject of "synapsis", may I put a few others belonging to you in question before I snap at them, in case you only "meant" something:

Other Shakespearean characters behave rashly, but each has a reason.

Othello is insecure.

Macbeth is somewhat power-hungry.

Hamlet...well, Hamlet's rashness was delayed, therein lying the problem. ...Just one reason? I'm sorry to be puzzled, because this idea somewhat contradicts with my idea of literary interpretation. And so these are the only reasons for Othello, Macbeth, and Hamlet (Hamlet's "delayed rashness" is the reason for his rashness?!?) to behave rashly? Would you like me to show you other possibilities? Look, you might have even tried to sidestep the "brute-force" label in the case of Macbeth with "somewhat". But ...no, still offended.


For Romeo and Juliet, they have little reason for rashness other than being either swept up in a whirlwind romance that ends badly, or young. I don't feel so bad for Romeo and Juliet anymore, having seen what Othello, Macbeth, and Hamlet have to suffer. Lets assume that you are right, then aren't "being swept up in a whirlwind romance that ends badly, or young" also legitimate reasons? If "somewhat power-hungry", "insecure", and... "delayed rashness" are, I don't see how these are not. But...


Pick one, or suggest another. Well, one might begin by asking: Why are they "swept up in a whirlwind romance"? That might lead to a few other reasons. One might also ask: If they are too young for their situation, why are they, or why are they put in it? Or: Does the same happen to other youths? If it does not, why does it happen only to Romeo and Juliet? If it does, what's wrong with society and are the youths alone responsible for their wrongs? What symtom of their society is reflected in their behaviour and demise and which is the most predominant: violence, hatred, romance, religion, politics, or, of course, the rashness of youth? Perhaps each of these symtoms are partly responsible?

Each question you ask of the text, each explanation you demand of it and look for in it will give you another possibility. But if you are satisfied with the understanding of asking one question and deem that others are just expansion of it, then why not just, like I said, blame their faults on the fact that "they are humans"? That would save us a lot of reading.

[ru36]

There's something about this in the stage version of The Elephant Man, isn't there? John Merrick points out that Romeo doesn't try to revive Juliet, doesn't check for a pulse and doesn't check to see if she breathes. He just dies.
now we normaly do that, but if some one you cared about died would you check there pulse if yes than good for you but he was just too upset to do any thing also remember the thing Fir.L gave her would make it so there was no pulse, no breath, so she looked dead so romeo couldn't tell the difference so he kills him self.

[ru36]

i love the book but i cant tell what he realy thinks of juliet

[a_blessyou]

Hi there. I'm new to this forum so forgive me if I step on any toes, but I think you have a very simplistic and cynical view of the play. What people forget when they read or see R&J is that it was written a very long time ago. The society in which these characters lived was filled with hate, not just people not liking each other, but passionate, 'I want to kill you if you walk past me' kind of hate. Relationships were not what they are now. People didn't have 8 long term partners before settling down and having babies. Girls husbands were chosen for them and that's the way it was. Romeo has a simplistic infatuation with Rosaline, he writes her bad poetry and loves her from afar, he never makes the effort to put himself on the line and risk death to be near her, even though he thinks he has been infatuated with her for so long. When Romeo meets Juliet, they do speak words, they in fact speak sonnets to each other, which, at the time was a famous form of love poetry. Why would Shakespeare go to the trouble of writing their frist lines to each other in this way, if he didn't want us to believe that they were in love?
Then even when Romeo knows that there is no way they can be together, he climbs the fence, risking his life, as they will kill him if they see him, just to maybe catch a glimpse of her. We can't assume that he knows exactly where she's going to be, and maybe he won't see her at all, but he WILL die if he is caught. I don't recall ever seeing anything about him doing the same thing for Rosaline. It is by pure chance that he sees Juliet, as much as we may like to take the simple view that he just rocked up to her bedroom and threw a few stones, that is not what happened. You have to remember also that Juliet doesn't believe she will ever see Romeo again when she does her whole balcony monologue, so who is it for if not to tell us how much she has been affected by their meeting?
Also look at the way everyone else talks about love and marriage and sex, its totally filthy, bawdy, disrespectful, smut. Romeo and Juliet speak to one another as if they had known each other forever. They pick up on each others images and rhythms, they see each other as a pure bright sensation of hope within a world cloaked in hate and fighting. I don't know about anyone else, but I think given their environment, there is no other option but that they are in love, whatever that means to them. These kids are young, that's true, but given that they are young, they don't have the life experience that we have, or that they would have if they were older. They only have access to the experiences they have had up to the time of the play. We are blessed with hindsight, we know what happens in the end and we know that if they had gone about things differently, they might have had a more successful ending. They don't. There seems to be this common myth, especially among young people and those that don't believe in love at first sight, that its so obvious that it isn't going to work. I ask you, have you ever been in love? I for one know that when you fall in love with someone, they are all you see, they become the only thing you need. Of course after a time things settle and the love changes, but Romeo and Juliet don't have that luxury. They see in each other a sense of hope that is not offered by anyone else, nor is it understood by anyone else in their lives. You can believe what you want, but remember the context that the play was written in, the lives that these people led, remember that they are human, and look at what Shakespeare wrote. Why is it "the greatest love story ever written" if they aren't in love? Shakespeare, I believe, clearly shows us that they are in fact, in love. WE as a society, place our own cynicism onto this story because of our own negative experiences and our own closed mindedness. We don't want to believe that these things are possible because they haven't happened to us and it irritates us. When you read this play, take note of what is at stake for the characters. They are willing to die for each other. Think like a human being, would you do that for someone you just had a crush on? Love is what it is. It is not the same for everyone. It affects people in different ways, that doesn't mean it isn't real.
Shakespeare tells us everything we need to know. He explains everything for us, all we have to do is read it and read it well and in detail. Most arguments about any of his texts can be solved by going back to the play, reading it intricately with an OPEN MIND, and accepting what the playwright gives us. By all means develop your own opinions after this, but know what it is that you are discussing before condemning the belief of a huge percent of the literary world. Think like an actor, its our job not to judge, and to actively look for all the information. I hope you are inspired to look deeper now, it would be a shame to maintain such a simple view of such a beautiful story without being fully aware of the choices that are available to you if you read the play in more detail.
Best wishes
Aimee

[RobinHood3000]

SyNOPsis, my apologies. Just lost a lot of sleep over working on Othello (ironic, no?), so I'll get back to this later.

[Knightskye]

'Scuse me, I'll just take this quote from the play to possibly explain something.


This bud of love, by summer's ripening breath,
May prove a beauteous flower when next we meet.

So, if he didn't love her, Juliet's apparently a liar. And William Shakespeare is a liar too, for in the narration he said, "The fearful passage of their death-mark'd love," did he not? Romeo did love Juliet.

[dramasnot6]

romeo and juliet does not neccesarily send a bad message. they were young, lustful creatures. what teenagers dont get obsessive and mistaken physical attraction as love? in a way it sends a message to young people about being careful about that sort of thing. dont get too caught up in "love" or else it might "kill" you, physically or emotionaly....we can always take shakespeare as
satire, i mean, what proves to us he writes about their fatal attraction seriosuly? i think hes making fun of how youth goes about spinning superficial compliments and lusting over eachother, forgetting all about their scruples and reality. but good point to bring up anyway.

[RobinHood3000]

Making love is distinct from being in love.

[rachael123]

I think he did not love her, he died because he was a teen and got caught in the momment. He didnt know what to do so he killed himeself because he thought he loved her when it was lust. How can you love someone and marry them at first sight... it was lust. It would be nice if people didnt have to love each other for there personalitly, but you do. They were doomed from the start. Otherwise Capulet would have had a son to carry on the fighting... so it had to end with juiliet. There were born to die.
You should read "Noughts and crosses" Thats a loves story.

Everyone thinks they know romeo and juilet, yet they dont. Thye think they loved each other and were ready to die for it... but they were both looking for an escape. Juilet from her marriage to paris, and romeo from rosline. Romoe was told how once he looked at another girl, rosline would look like a crow compared to anyother girl.

its was a rebound relationship
They both wanted to get out of there lives; romeo to escape rosline and juilet to escape paris. jUilet wasnt going to marry until she saw romeo.
"death [b]mark'd[b] love"
It wasnt real love, just labled love by shakespeare

[Bakiryu]

Yeah, I don't think he really loved her. He's a guy! He probably just though she was hot and wanted to sleep with her and Juliet just didn't want to get married like everyone says.

That's Shakespeare's point.

[LadyW]

I have always considered the love between Romeo and Juliet to be the purest of all consuming and unconditional love. I do believe the initial attraction was a product of circumstance, the thrill and liberty of taking a chance on forbidden love- but the devotion was not.

Whilst "love at first sight" is an underlying theme in the play, I do believe that simultaneously, Romeo was Juliet's escape from her busybodying parents arranging a much dreaded marriage; Juliet was Romeo's liberator. After suffering the torment of unrequited love with Rosaline, the distress of a constant feud between the two families, Juliet burst into his life - completely lifting his heart.

I do believe that Romeo loved Juliet, I do. I also think that his "love" for Rosaline was an illusion, an exaduration of a strong attraction, soon distinguished by Juliets arrival. But Romeo's character is somewhat disagreeable to me... he seems quite melodramatic and childish at times (unlike Juliet, who I consider to be most brave and admirable.)

In regards to the love in general, we must consider the time span - a key theme throughout the play. The lovers attempt to preserve this imaginary world void of time and the cutting realities that encircle them; they fight time in order to make their love last forever. Only in dying, would their love prevail.

In reality, their love was condensed into a mere 5 days (if memory serves); but it was such a powerful love, an all-conquering love. Casting aside the impossible situation they were in (prior to the double suicide), I fear that this iconic and great love would have dwindled in time. Perhaps not to an extent where they fell out of love, but so the passion and commitment paled significantly. 5 days certainly isn't enough time to know a persons character fully; it is possible they would have resolved to intensely disagree with eachother. Moreover, they were young; they didn't have to concern themselves with the dull trivialities of adult life - they longed for freedom, for something extraordinary. Their death was so untimely, that their relationship never had chance to falter. (Or perhaps I am being too cynical here? "Romeo and Juliet - The Divorce;" it would make good television :) )

Perhaps we should take into consideration that this was written way before we all started watching Who Wants to Marry a Millionare...

[AshleyMare]

I couldn't agree more, and I thought I was the only one. I mean it was well written but Romeo was a pathetic and Juliet and idiot.

[kelby_lake]

I think their falling in love is their doom. It is their destiny to do so and die.

[the_black_skye]

i love the book but i cant tell what he realy thinks of juliet

But it's a PLAY.. not a book.

[skasian]

People do not die for one another out of nothing. Their sacrifice for one another represents the strength of their love. Solving their conflict of the plot by dying demonstrates the idea that they would be better off dying than not being able to love and be loved by each other.

[xlxlauraxlx]

He was obsessed with Rosaline before that, and I imagine with several other girls before that.



It wasn't the same love, he was deluded. The emotion he felt for Rosaline cause him pain and distress 'Oh Brawling Love', this is conrasted with the love he feels with Juliet and he even questions whether he loved before. Yes he love for Rosaline was an obsession but his love for Juliet was true.

[canned_dice]

I believe that Shakespeare was fully conscious about the impossibility of their so-called love. It was exaggerated, justified only by flowery words and promises. However, why would he do such a thing? Why would he want to portray an imperfect love?

I think he wanted to portray as a tragedy not the desperation of a lost love but one of the family feud. It was ridiculous; if I recall accurately, no one remembered why the feud was, but it was. Tensions were high for no clear reason. Only a love as ridiculous as the feud could send the message home.

[JBI]

I am positive Juliet loved Romeo, and it would seem that Shakespeare is suggesting Romeo loves her. In truth, whether you think the love is plausible or not is really missing the point of the play. The central focus of the play is the sacrifical death of the two lovers, because of their parents' and societies inability to allow them to openly love each other. The old Patriarchs are too preoccupied with their battle, and Tybalt is too preoccupied with his desire to perpetuate Capulet's war, to enable a space to created where the two lovers can openly express their feelings, both physically and spiritually.

The only time, actually, the lovers can actually be full with each other, is, ironically, the time right before Romeo must go and never see Juliet alive again. The space contained within the night before dawn, and embodied in the song of the Nightingale, an old symbol, gesturing back to Ovid's Philomela, is the one moment when love, for a brief period, while the battle sleeps, can find its inviolable fullness. This image later is taken up by Keats in his Ode to a Nightingale, but the idea is ancient. The restrictions of everyday life finally are removed, in a sphere where love can briefly flourish, and the two lovers can be together.

Unsurprisingly, it is also this moment that the central image of the poem, as Frye remarked in his essay on Romeo and Juliet (I'm not sure exactly where he got the notion) the central imagery begins to pertain towards gunpowder. The illusion of the existence of the space, is suddenly complete jeopardized, and waiting to explode. That is the centre of the poem. That the grotesqueness of these two Patriarchs, and the whole of Verona, leads to these lovers to take their lives. Because of their inability to allow their children's love to flourish, the only choice really, is death. Fulfillment cannot be gained without it.

I know, someone along here I seem to have crossed Shakespeare with Wagner, but I think the message is somewhat fundamental to the constructs of society up until this very day. I think, to get back to the question, that that is a naive reading, built mainly from a misreading of scholarship that tries to focus too heavily on character analysis. In general, the words and the actions, according to the conventions of drama at the time, seem all to suggest the two lovers truly love each other. In fact, love back then was perceived as something more physical than it is today, and seems far more optimistic. I think some critics, however, tend to focus too heavily on character, and miss the central point of the story, by removing the idea that Romeo truly loves Juliet. I am, without a doubt, certain that the play makes it perfectly clear Juliet loves Romeo. And I am almost as certain the play makes it clear Romeo returns that love. All the highschool constructed readings of viewing the lovers as "teenagers" (a concept non-existent in Shakespeare's time) or as too young to love is rather silly. In truth, the play, especially focusing on Juliet, who is one of the greatest creations of Shakespeare, seems to suggest a sort of coming of age narrative as well. Juliet, before sheltered and subject to her parent's wishes reaches the age where she has a sexual awakening, and breaks from the zone of control her parents enforced. The progress of the characters show that she is fully capable of making rational decisions, and is very much in love, and mature for her age. I think the best lines to support this would be her famous:

My bounty is as boundless as the sea,
My love as deep; the more I give to thee,
The more I have, for both are infinite.

Those aren't the lines of a child - she is fully conscious of what she is saying, and she is fully conscious of the notion that Romeo returns the love.

[kelby_lake]

But at the beginning Romeo is portrayed as a typical lovelorn guy- a bit like Orsino. Orsino doesn't actually love Olivia- he just likes the idea of love.

[kari]

I was thinking about this very topic the last few days. I have read some of these comments, but not all. Like some, I agree that by todays standards, many may view Romeo as not loving Juliet. But I think that comes because many people now days expect someone to "prove" their love, by dating a period of time, hitting milestones, such as meeting the parents, moving in together, something along those lines. However, there are people that don't need that. I married my husband 4 days after meeting him, and 9 years later we are happy together, and have 2 beautiful daughters. We loved each other then, and we love each other now. Many people call us crazy for marrying so young. When it comes to love, I think it is important to remember everyone loves differently, and not all fit into the mold made by society today.
Personally, when I read Romeo and Juliet, I view their love as a more innocent love, a younger love. They are stripped from our societies mold of how things should be, how things should go in a relationship. They just love each other.

[Skia]

Romeo loved Juliet,
Juliet loved Romeo.
There's no deep other secret meaning.
Thats how it is :)

[Mrs.Dormer]

In my Romeo and Juliet analyse ( at school) I wrote the same statment, as Romiet. My teacher was shocked.:eek6: O and I've called Juliete a whore. :hurray:No really, Romeo was just lady-man and Juliete to naive little girl. Moral (not what Shakespeare wanted to say, but what I've learnt): You can't loose you head because of love ( or lust, no matter). Love isn't a constant thing. It changes many time in life ( expecially unrequited love) . R&J love isn't something speciall. Them feelings were selfish. Love is a selfish little thing. That's why they fighted so much over it. They fought for 5 minutes happiness, because they were stuborn and because they held them opinions more right then them perents. Juliete believed in Romeo, about Romeo, I don't know, strange things happens to him...:out::arf:I can only say, that I found Rosaline the most atractive of them all.

[Mudkip]

This play sends a really bad message to young people.

Shakespeare's plays are not intended as life guides.

[kelby_lake]

Shakespeare's plays are not intended as life guides.

LOL. Imagine Titus and Gertrude writing good parenting guides, or Helena from All's Well That Ends Well's guide to love- gotta love a bed trick. Or in Duke Vincentio's case, a bed trick and a head trick.

[byquist]

As I recall, he killed himself with a dagger. Would you kill yourself for anything less than love? Yes, he loved her; couldn't live without her.

[Mrs.Dormer]

As I recall, he killed himself with a dagger. Would you kill yourself for anything less than love? Yes, he loved her; couldn't live without her.

no,*he*was*just:out:

[zoolane]

At moment I am read 'Romeo and Juliet' at college and sort try figure how out my write essay.

On this subject, Romeo come across has a boy just wanted Juliet in bed and is play up to her with romance words. Juliet is flatted by it all and get sweep up the romance of it all. And you generally find must 14 -16 boys main girls think true or wanted to be.

[togre]

Okay, this may well sidetrack the discussion a bit, but I think defining the terms are vital.

What is "love"? What does it mean to "be in love"? Are these the same? To what extent did Romeo love or to what extent was Romeo in love with Juliet, or both?

In my own mind, "to be in love" is the euphoric emotions usually identified with young love. "Lust" has been bandied about, and it would be foolish to exclude physical desire from the equation. But "being in love" is far more complex than lust. Being in love make the object of the emotion the focus of every thought. It is experiencing all the wonder of discovering who that person is, the foolish optimism of a future of bliss unfolding in the mind's eye. It is often irrational. I feel that this describes Romeo very aptly. He was enthralled. Wrapped up in the experience. His ignoring of the obstacles and his despair at finding Juliet "dead" fit this well. Being loopy and being in love are far from mutually exclusive.

Okay, but what about love? Did Romeo really love Juliet? Well, what is love. This is more difficult one, I think. Defining love, that is. I'm convinced true, genuine love dwells more in the will than in the emotions. It's not just the feeling "I really like this person." it's the decision "I will stand by this person, trust this person, show kindness, care and respect for this person no matter what." It's a willing, self-sacrificing commitment. It's like the song "Do you love me?" from Fiddler on the Roof.

"Do I love him?
For twenty-five years I've lived with him
Fought him, starved with him
Twenty-five years my bed is his
If that's not love, what is?"

Okay, that's not the Romantic ideal. In love was in vogue at the time of Shakespeare and I'd say it remains in vogue today--crazy kids (mumble grumble). I don't think Romeo possessed a love of that depth yet, but few people develop it overnight. What Romeo had could well have matured into this kind of love, and given that he was married and what that meant at that time (yeah, cheating was rife, but not universal) he had a fair shot.


What do you think? Is that what you mean when you talk about "love" and "in love"? Or am I way off base?

[Ecurb]

Romeo and Juliet played at love. "What light through yonder window breaks? It is the dawn and Juliet is the sun!" They were very young, and, like Gorice 10 in The Worm Oborous, they invoked a magic which they lacked the power to control -- and it destroyed them.

[kelby_lake]

I agree with Ecurb. They allowed themselves to get caught up in the initially thrilling sexual awakening (at least on Juliet's part) but are unable to see anything beyond the now, hence they die.

[mike thomas]

Of course Romeo didn't love Juliet. What he wanted was a quick leg-over. As usual, Juliet falls into the trap of believing he loves her.. etc etc blah blah. Why do you you think the Capulet family hated the Mountagues? The very start of the play is a hint of how the young men thought of women: pushing girls "to the wall" etc etc. A right bunch of thugs with nothing else on their minds but banging heads and maidens. Romeo and his pals are no better.

The Nurse knew the score: she's a right old slag on the side, and loves the double meanings. She actually aids Juliet's loss of virginity.

Romeo loved Juliet ? you got to be jokin. The play is about opposition stupidity and and hate.

[rhamilton76]

I disagree with this statement. I think all the love they show is true. I think that Romeo and Juliet really did love each other. If they did not love each other they would have not gone through all the trouble to be together. Romeo and Juliet lost a lot of people that were important to them because of them being together. I do think they love each other because they would not have gone through all that trouble for people to die for them. William Shakespeare was trying to get out the message that they do love each other, not the message that they don’t. Even though Romeo and Juliet’s parents did not love each other, it does not mean Romeo and Juliet did not. Romeo left town so that there would not be any more trouble and that shows true love. If that did not care and love each other, he would not have left. The reason they died at the end of the book was for each other because they could not be with anyone else but each other.