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:Quote:
Originally Posted by rachel
Printable View
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by rachel
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Campbell
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mir
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinHood3000
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
A point of interest: unlike modern audiences, the Elizabethans made no distinction between love and lust.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinHood3000
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinHood3000
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinHood3000
...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.Quote:
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.
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinHood3000
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinHood3000
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
i love the book but i cant tell what he realy thinks of juliet
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
SyNOPsis, my apologies. Just lost a lot of sleep over working on Othello (ironic, no?), so I'll get back to this later.
'Scuse me, I'll just take this quote from the play to possibly explain something.
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.Quote:
This bud of love, by summer's ripening breath,
May prove a beauteous flower when next we meet.
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.
Making love is distinct from being in love.
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
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.
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...
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.
I think their falling in love is their doom. It is their destiny to do so and die.
But it's a PLAY.. not a book.Quote:
Originally Posted by ru36
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Romiet
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.
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.
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.
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.
Romeo loved Juliet,
Juliet loved Romeo.
There's no deep other secret meaning.
Thats how it is :)
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.