Printable View
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?
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.
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?
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by nguyenngoctue
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by vinide
Obviously somebody cares.
One could argue that Mickey Mouse gives bad messages to young people.Quote:
Originally Posted by vinide
This is called critically analyzing literature.Quote:
Originally Posted by vinide
Some books do intend to portray real things, and other books intend to portray imaginary things.Quote:
Originally Posted by vinide
I disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by vinide
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by vinide
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Romiet
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*
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.")Quote:
Originally Posted by Mace Sin
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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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...
What’s the matter with you, XC – have you never heard the expression “I’m dying for a shag”?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
*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:
Ha ha ha - Shakespeare should have used that for the title.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by SleepyWitch