Romeo Did Not Love Juliet

[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.