MovieChat Forums > Romeo and Juliet (1968) Discussion > How deep was Romeo + Juliet's love?

How deep was Romeo + Juliet's love?

posted 15 years ago by Luanna255
77 replies | jump to latest

I know, I know. 99.99999% of you are looking at that going "It's ROMEO AND JULIET, FOOL! As in THE GREATEST LOVE STORY of ALL TIME!!!" and the other 0.00001% don't like Shakespeare in the first place. But please, please, hear me out.

First of all, at the beginning of the play, Romeo is languishing with love for ROSALINE. He goes to the party to see her, meets Juliet instead, and all of a sudden - BAM! - now he is in love with Juliet. The Friar even points this out to him, and the best defence Romeo can give is that the Friar told him to stop obsessing over Rosaline anyway, and that Rosaline didn't love him back, while Juliet does. While both of these things are true, that doesn't necessarily mean that after a few months (or less!) Romeo wouldn't have met some other girl and decided that SHE was his one and only true love. He never gives any real reason for why his love for Juliet is truer and deeper (for example: Juliet is a kinder person, Juliet understands him better, he can talk to Juliet more, he truly knows Juliet as a person, he and Juliet have more in common, etc.) He even, weirdly enough, uses almost exactly the same terms in praising them. In response to Benvolio's suggestion that he may find someone fairer than Rosaline at the party, he says
"One fairer than my love! the all-seeing sun
Ne'er saw her match since first the world begun"

This is an eerie echo of his famous later quote,
"But soft! What light through yonder window breaks?
It is the East, and Juliet is the sun!"

Romeo refers to Juliet as "my life" after having met her about five minutes ago. He doesn't know the first thing about her, indeed he has only just discovered that she is a Capulet. She could be a serial killer and he wouldn't know. He knows nothing about her inside, who she really is. The only thing he really does know about her is that she's beautiful (and witty, I suppose).

Similarly, just a few minutes after that Juliet refers to Romeo as "My only love". She, too, knows nothing about him, except that he's good-looking, witty, and can "kiss by the book".

To me, there doesn't seem to be anything particularly deep in that love. They are infatuated teenagers, that's all.

And later? Does their love become more real after their first meeting? You never see them have a real conversation, and their love speeches to one another seem to be entirely related to beauty, to the physical.

When hearing that Romeo has killed Tybalt - towards to END of the play, Juliet, anguished, cries
"O nature, what hadst thou to do in hell,
When thou didst bower the spirit of a fiend
In moral paradise of such sweet flesh?
Was ever book containing such vile matter
So fairly bound? O that deceit should dwell
In such a gorgeous palace!"

In other words, she can't believe that Romeo could be so good-looking on the outside, and a horrible cousin-murderer on the inside. Which shows how little she really knows him. She doesn't protest that Romeo is too good or moral of a person to have killed Tybalt without good reason, or that it goes against his character. How can she? She doesn't KNOW his character. The only thing she does know is his looks, and this speech, if anything, shows how deceiving looks can be.

And yet, at some point, their love DOES start seeming more real. At Romeo and Juliet's last meeting, when Juliet pleads with Romeo to stay longer, he says "Let me be ta'en, let me be put to death; I am content, so thou wilt have it so... Come, death, and welcome! Juliet wills it so. How is't, my soul? let's talk; it is not day"
Of course, he might be saying this flippantly, with typical teenage hyperboly. Nevertheless, the threat of death is very real, and consequences of being found in Juliet's room would be disastrous, but Romeo is willing to risk it because "Juliet wills it so".

Similarly, Juliet is willing to risk anything to be with Romeo towards the end of the play. The plan which the Friar comes up with involving the faked death has numerous risks, and Juliet is aware of them. "What if this mixture do not work at all?" she asks herself. "Shall I be married then to-morrow morning?... What if it be a poison, which the friar subtly hath minister'd to have me dead...? I fear it is...How if, when I am laid into the tomb, I wake before the time that Romeo come to redeem me? There's a fearful point! Shall I not, then, be stifled in the vault...And there die strangled ere my Romeo comes?"

Yet in spite of all the risks, Juliet goes forward with the plan for Romeo's sake, saying "Romeo, I come! this do I drink to thee"

Almost at the end of the play, just before being told that Juliet has "died" Romeo says of Juliet "Nothing can be ill, if she be well". Wanting what's best for the other person, not merely selfishly taking what you want from them, is a very deep and true love.

Their suicides, too, could be said to be evidence of a very strong bond, a love so deep that if the other person is dead, you might as well be dead, too.

Yet just before committing suicide, Romeo seems never to have gotten any further than loving Juliet only for her beauty. His last speech is almost entirely about how, even "dead", Juliet is still beautiful. Thus it would seem that his love, at least, never progressed past an infatuation rooted purely in the physical.

And so, my friends, what think you? Was Romeo & Juliet's love real, or purely based on physicality? If they had lived, do you think they would have remained in love forever, or sooner or later would Romeo have found True Love #3?

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Drevnibor 10 years ago

All of your points are quite valid. That kind of story would never work in real life. But, it IS just a story,

I don't agree.
Romeo & Juliet doesn't show true love, it shows us the love at first sight and YOUNG LOVE.
Romeo and Juliet are kids - they THINK their love is true, when, in fact, it's just young love - which is completely different than true love.

[–] electrictroy 8 years ago

In Greek the word is "eros" which means erotic love. They lust for one another's bodies, but it is not the "agape" love that would sustain a marriage for 40+ years. They barely know anything about one another.

[–] roghache 15 years ago

Great post, OP, lots of valid points!

As far as 'Romeo and Juliet' being the greatest love story of all time, I think not. Their love clearly wasn't deep at all. The two of them barely knew each other! Romeo was indeed pining for Rosaline just before meeting Juliet and I agree it was more an admiration of each other's beauty, a physical attraction. They didn't know each other well enough for anything deeper, having merely three or so encounters. One has to wonder whether their 'love' would have withstood an injury that marred the other's physical beauty.

It's actually an absurd story but brilliantly told, as only Shakespeare could do! People (myself included) lap it up as it embodies all our unrealistic ideals of romantic and passionate love. It's all very dramatic but comitting suicide over the death of a person met a few days ago, that you barely know, is hardly a grand, romantic act indicating true love.

Most couples when they begin courting undergo a period of 'rose coloured glasses' infatuation somewhat akin to Romeo and Juliet's feelings. It either fizzles out with time and one or both parties choose to move on or it does develop into something deeper, real love. With Romeo and Juliet, it's difficult to say had they lived, which would have happened.

Given the quick change in Romeo from Rosaline to Juliet, I wouldn't want to bet on any great enduring faithfulness. People did marry at a young age in those days but teenagers aren't noted for the longevity of their romances! An excellent point, the similarity in Romeo's phrases about Rosaline and Juliet. Methinks he might well have been using sun analogies about Girl #3 before too long!

However, I love this movie, ridiculous as the tale is. The young actors are perfect in their roles and Shakespeare did have such a way with words! It's nice to pretend it was real love.

[–] Luanna255 15 years ago

I have to agree with you, roghache. The one and only reason this story works is because Shakespeare was THE most brilliant writer of all time. People will believe anything if it is appealing and beautifully expressed, without stopping to think if it is really sensible.

In another play by Shakespeare, As You Like It, is the famous quote "Who ever loved that loved not at first sight?"
This quotation is actually originally from Christopher Marlowe's poem Hero and Leander, which is thought to have loosely been one of the inspirations behind Romeo and Juliet, and which is similarly a beautifully written but ridiculous plot-wise tale of love at first sight (and in fact I believe it was Marlowe who coined the phrase "love at first sight" in Hero & Leander).

Now, this quote is insanely quotable. It is beautifully written. It is an appealing idea. But it is absolutely, 100% nonsense. "Love at first sight", quite simply, is a myth (the one exception to this is in relation to babies, who are loved at first sight. But that is quite a different type of love). It is possible to be attracted or interested at first sight, but real, true love comes from knowledge of the other person's character, from times spent together, from growing together and talking together and thinking together. It is NOT, contrary to what Romeo & Juliet (and Cinderella, and Hero & Leander, and so many other stories which perpetuate the myth) would have us believe, gained in an instant, the minute you see someone, nor is kissing someone a good or reliable way to ascertain if they are your "true love" (a myth perpetuated in Romeo & Juliet, Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, etc.)

What you do gain in that instant is attraction or interest, as I said above, followed by, exactly as you said above, a period of romance or "rose-colored glasses" infatuation. So many people think this is love itself, but of course it is not. The true love comes later, after you grow together as people, after you work together as partners, helping each other through the hard times and trying to find the right path together, and after you gain a deep understanding of the person's character. That is what love is really about. It is NOT about teenagers who meet at a party, kiss, and decide after 5 minutes that this is true love.

But of course the infatuation can develop over time into true love. Exactly what I was trying to figure out in my post if Romeo & Juliet's did. As I said, there is some evidence to support that, but in the end I have to come down on the side of no, it remained at infatuation level. First of all, there simply wasn't enough time for them to have bonded in any true way. Secondly, as I said, we never see them having any deep conversation (or, really, any conversation at all except speeches about how beautiful they are) or any experiences which might have led to a true bond. And lastly, Romeo's speech right before he commits suicide is still all about Juliet's beauty, showing that his love is still not rooted in anything real.

Another myth perpetuated in Romeo & Juliet is "star-cross'd lovers". Not that true love will always be easy, of course - just the opposite - but you have to love the idea that forbidden love is somehow truer, and that a stable relationship is "safe" and "boring". Aside from plain old teenage infatuation, I think another motivation behind Romeo & Juliet's mutual infatuation is the lure of the forbidden. This, too, is a deeply appealing idea - "We will be together IN SPITE OF ALL!" - but there is nothing more real about forbidden love.

By the way, roghache, I laughed out loud at the image of Romeo using sun metaphors about Girl #3... It's so true!

[–] roghache 15 years ago

We are kindred spirits, Luanna! I was actually thinking of writing in my post about the lure of forbidden love but I see you've penned my thoughts for me! I couldn't agree more! If parents forbid a romance with someone, that will be the very person their offspring is guaranteed to become besotted over!!!

Great point about, "Who ever loved that loved not at first sight?" I've heard the quote but never realized its origin and of course you're absolutely right about it being untrue.

The one and only reason this story works is because Shakespeare was THE most brilliant writer of all time. People will believe anything if it is appealing and beautifully expressed, without stopping to think if it is really sensible.

Perfectly worded! The story of Romeo and Juliet is pure nonsense, no doubt about it!

If someone asked me for an illustration of true love, I'd be more likely to tell them about an older couple I saw at a shopping mall recently, both hobbling along with canes. The man appeared to be more feeble than the woman so she was helping him as best she could. I could just picture all the joys and sorrows this couple had been through together. Or another couple I know where the wife was diagnosed with a progressive, debilitating disease shortly after her wedding and her husband, a young man in his prime, looked after her faithfully for 15 years throughout her ever deteriorating condition until her death. I wouldn't predict our Romeo to be so faithful to his Juliet once her beauty ceased to rival that of the sun!

[–] Luanna255 15 years ago

Roghache, both of those stories you posted are so beautiful and inspiring! THAT is true love.
In Ethics of Our Fathers (a very inspiring book!) it says "Any love that is dependent on something - when the thing ceases, the love also ceases. But a love that is not dependent on anything never ceases." I think this applies perfectly to Romeo & Juliet. If their love was dependant on each other's physical beauty, then as soon as the physical beauty was gone (which would have to have happened sooner or later) the "love" would be gone, too. But a love rooted in something real will never stop, as we see with the two examples you wrote above.

We are kindred spirits, Luanna! I was actually thinking of writing in my post about the lure of forbidden love but I see you've penned my thoughts for me! I couldn't agree more! If parents forbid a romance with someone, that will be the very person their offspring is guaranteed to become besotted over!!!

Exactly right! It's the lure of the forbidden: If someone tells you that you can do whatever you like, but this ONE THING is forbidden, that ONE THING is exactly what you'll decide you MUST have. It's human nature. You see that as early as the Biblical story of Adam and Eve, or the Greek myth of Pandora's box. If you can be with any person except your family's worst enemy, that's who you'll decide is your one true love. Plus there is definitely an element of rebelling against your parents, and what's forbidden + secret is always more exciting. (Not necessarily more real, obviously.)
And I agree, we do seem to be kindred spirits! We are on exactly the same page with this, I agree with everything you've written.

Great point about, "Who ever loved that loved not at first sight?" I've heard the quote but never realized its origin and of course you're absolutely right about it being untrue.

Few people do know it's origin, and if they know it at all, they know it only from Shakespeare's play As You Like It, and don't realize that Shakespeare "borrowed" it from Marlowe. (By the way, you can read the full poem Hero & Leander here: http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/hero.htm
It is long-ish, but worth it in my opinion. The quote "Who ever loved that loved not at first sight?" is fairly early on if you don't want to read the whole thing.)
In fact, in Romeo & Juliet (this is kind of off topic, but what the heck) Shakespeare actually also "borrows" some lines from Marlowe. Earlier, I mentioned Romeo's famous quote, when he sees Juliet on the balcony:
"But soft! What light through yonder window breaks?
It is the East, and Juliet is the sun!"

This is strikingly similar to a quote from Marlowe's earlier play, The Jew of Malta, when the play's anti-hero, Barabas (The Jew of the play's title) sees his daughter Abigail - also on a balcony - and exclaims
"But stay! What star shines yonder in the east?
The lodestar of my life, if Abigail!"

Similarly, in Romeo & Juliet, Romeo kisses Juliet, and says that by kissing her his sins have been purged. Juliet asks if her lips then have the sin they took. Romeo then kisses her for the second time, saying "Give me my sin again."
Although this is more subtle, this also echoes Marlowe, in this case the famous Helen of Troy speech from his Doctor Faustus (which we have to thank for the phrase "the face that launched a thousand ships") when Faustus kisses the shade of Helen of Troy, and declares that her lips "suck forth" his soul. He then kisses her a second time, saying "Give me my soul again". In addition to the identical phrasing, the somewhat odd idea of sins or souls being transferred through kissing is also clearly copied from Marlowe.
Indeed, these parallels are so striking at times that some people (known as Marlovians) use them (and other evidence) to try and claim that Marlowe actually WAS Shakespeare, a theory which I personally don't ascribe to, though I find it intriguing.
But anyway, that was all rather off topic. I personally find Marlowe very interesting, though, so I couldn't resist.

By the way, have you ever seen the movie Victoria & Albert (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0262995/)? It is about Queen Victoria's marriage to her husband, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, and it is one of my all-time favorites. It is wonderfully historically accurate, and the love portrayed between Victoria and Albert is much, much closer to my definition of true love than Romeo & Juliet. I always cry at the end, LOL.

[–] roghache 15 years ago

Kindred spirits for sure!

I'd also like to add that IMO, no one should take these teenagers killing themselves as indicative that they loved each other more than those who don't commit suicide upon learning their beloved has died. I'm sure many people in their grief do briefly contemplate suicide, the pain of loss is so intense. In fact, you often hear of older couples where one dies and the other follows shortly thereafer. I may seem to know a lot of older people but with my friend's parents in their early 90's, after the husband passed away, the wife (who hadn't appeared ill) followed suit within three weeks, almost as though she lost the will to live.

I realize Romeo and Juliet are not intended to be thinking clearly but overwhelmed by their passionate grief. However, I'd like to make the point that real love is unselfish, wanting what's best for the other person. The dead person would want their beloved to carry on with life, remember them with love, yes, but not grieve intensely forever, instead find purpose, joy, and humour in life again, even love for someone else. The last thing they'd want is their beloved to commit suicide, especially at so young an age!! So while it's all very dramatic, I don't think these suicides are any sign of true love. They're more an indicator of lacking depth and wisdom, a tragic and misguided case of impulsive teenage behaviour.

Shakespeare could and did at other times write with some wisdom about real love. My favourite of his sonnets is CXVI "Let me not to the marriage of true minds..."

Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds

Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come

Romeo might have benefitted from reading the above passages! I think they are much more compelling phrasing about true love than Romeo's fixation on Juliet's beauty, his waxing poetic about her (or Rosaline) and the sun!

However, again I don't let any of this ruin the story for me but allow myself to get swept up in Romeo and Juliet's 'Grand Romance'!

[–] Luanna255 15 years ago

Shakespeare could and did at other times write with some wisdom about real love

Yeah, Shakespeare was kind of conflicted on love. In certain places (like the sonnet you quoted above, which is indeed far more beautiful and inspiring than Romeo's famous sun metaphors) he seemed aware of what love truly was, yet we also have him to thank for some of the most widespread yet untrue myths about love out there. In addition to presenting teenage infatuation as "true love", and glorifying forbidden love and secret trysts, Shakespeare also pioneered the "love-hate relationship" a concept which basically didn't exist until then, and which he represented in a wide range of ways, from Beatrice and Benedick in Much Ado About Nothing, whose friendly arguing is cute and lighthearted, to Katherina being "tamed" by Petruchio in The Taming of the Shrew (the one Shakespeare play I can't stand, no matter how well-written it is) to his downright disturbing "Dark Lady" sonnets. Love and hate are NOT close, no matter what everyone claims. Arguments are normal and unavoidable for all couples, but they should be avoided whenever possible. And certainly, if you hate someone your chances of a happy marriage with them are next to zero. The "love-hate" myth is one of the most dangerous out there, in my opinion.
I have nothing to support it, but I always thought that what Shakespeare wrote about more stable - if "boring" - relationships referred to his wife, Anne Hathaway Shakespeare, while the more sexual-based, love-hate relationships were modelled on his "tyrannous" and "cruel" Dark Lady lover.

[–] jschillig 15 years ago

Glad you brought that up. Many seem to take it on faith that a) Shakespeare's marriage to Anne Hathaway was unhappy, and b) that the sonnets' plot of the Will/Dark Lady/Fair Young Man triangle was biographical.

But if Shakespeare's marriage was so unhappy, why did he return to Stratford and Anne after he stopped writing? He could have just settled in lodgings in London. Some take the bequest of the "second-best bed" as a dig at Anne, but it could have been that this was their marriage bed...the best bed was usually for guests. (If it *was* their marriage bed, then the bequest becomes more affectionate.)

And as far as the Dark Lady story being biographical...why take that on faith? Is the poet narrating the sonnets necessarily meant to be Shakespeare himself, any more than a raven actually entered Poe's bedchamber one night and kept croaking "Nevermore"? Could it be that Shakespeare, the master dramatist, was simply trying out a new form of storytelling?

[–] Luanna255 15 years ago

You're right, and I'm glad you brought that up, too. I wasn't really implying that Shakespeare's marriage to Anne was unhappy, though, and in fact I don't believe that it was. Most people seem to take the fact that she was older (which proves nothing - plenty of men like older women, and it was eight years, not twenty or something) coupled with the fact that she was pregnant at their wedding (also proves nothing - and, hello, he loved her enough to get her pregnant in the first place!) and conclude that he was forced into a loveless marriage. This isn't at all necessarily the case, and I would like to believe that there was at least some love between them. Some people also believe that he wrote Sonnet 145 was written for her (I know, I know - moot point if you take the Sonnets as not autobiographical, but I personally DO see them as autobiographical) and if that's so, he certainly wrote about her in very romantic terms - "those lips that love's own hand did make", etc.

As for my assumption that the Sonnets are autobiographical, in the Sonnets Shakespeare constantly refers to himself by name (Will) which is not the case in Poe's The Raven. Also, there's evidence that the sonnets were not originally intended for publication and were only passed around among "his private friends". Why hide them unless there was something personal in them? It's possible he just didn't think they were good enough for publication, but it does seem to point towards them being personal and private poems about his life.

[–] Weber4278 15 years ago

I always felt that you can't judge Romeo and Juliet by realistic standards. I always saw it as a fairy tale with a sad ending and the majority of fairy tales have the girl and guy (prince and princess) fall in love at first sight. Cinderella, Snow White, etc.

It's basically the same thing except they live 'happily ever after' and Romeo and Juliet don't. You have to look at the story from the same perspective you would a fairy tale, otherwise it will look stupid. It's art and art doesn't always have to be realistic to be truthful, as a young girl I loved the idea of seeing a boy and falling head over heels in love at first sight, like Juliet and Cinderella. Yes I knew it wasn't real life but we live real life every day, it's only through books and movies etc, that we can escape real life for awhile and enter a world where 'reality and it's rules' don't apply.

So to make a long story short, YES Romeo and Juliet were madly in love in 'Their World' which isn't 'Our World'. I guess you could call it 'Shakespears World'.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Weber4278 15 years ago

Thanks! :)

[–] Luanna255 15 years ago

Weber4278, to an extent you're right. It is just a story. However, I've never liked stories which don't accurately portray human nature. One of the main reasons I love Shakespeare's plays is that you identify so strongly with the characters' emotions. Shakespeare is usually a master of portraying human nature and emotion - Macbeth's ambition, Hamlet's grief, depression, and vengefulness, Lear's broken emptiness, Othello's jealousy. He usually gets it spot-on. The plots may be larger-than-life, but the human reactions, the emotions, and the messages are generally very realistic and relatable. That's why they're still so popular today.
Now, I'm not saying this isn't the case in Romeo & Juliet - Romeo and Juliet's behavior is highly typical of teenagers everywhere - but the thing is, Shakespeare usually calls it what it is. He doesn't try to pretend that Macbeth's ambition is a mission to make Scotland a better place or that Othello's murder of his wife is anything but a stupid and impulsive reaction. So it comes as a bit of a shock that in one of his greatest, most famous plays he's taken teenage infatuation and dressed it up as timeless true love.
What's even more alarming is that few people seem to notice this. Romeo & Juliet still stand as symbols of "true love" today, and the myths perpetuated in the play are still considered ideals of romantic love.
And, for that matter, I don't like most fairy tales. The love they portray is every bit as untrue as Romeo and Juliet's, and they're not beautifully written the way Romeo & Juliet is.

[–] Weber4278 15 years ago

Well you like what you like and I like what I like, if we all liked the same things the world would be a very boring place wouldn't it ;)

I guess I'm just a romantic who grew up loving fairy tales, and Romeo and Juliet was the FIRST Shakespeare play I ever read, it's what made me fall in love with Shakespeare so naturally it will always hold a very special place in my heart, it will probably always be my favorite.

Mabey one of the reasons so many people favor Romeo and Juliet, and indeed one BIG reason I do is it's message about love and hate.

How love can bring people together, even enemies, while hate divides us. And sadly their is a lot of hate in this world, so I guess to many people Romeo and Juliet stands as a symbol for love and how love can bring us together despite out differences. :)

[–] Luanna255 15 years ago

I guess to many people Romeo and Juliet stands as a symbol for love and how love can bring us together despite out differences

Well, that is certainly true. On a similar note, some people think Romeo & Juliet was Shakespeare's subtle criticism of the bitter struggle between Protestants and Catholics which was going on during his time. The message about how pointless hatred will destroy all that is good and real is a very true and powerful one, and one of the reasons why I like Romeo & Juliet. The only thing I am questioning is whether, in fact, Romeo & Juliet's love was that real, and I believe it wasn't.

you like what you like and I like what I like, if we all liked the same things the world would be a very boring place wouldn't it ;)

I never said I didn't like Romeo & Juliet! I love Romeo & Juliet, it is beautifully written and tragic. I'm merely analyzing how true Romeo and Juliet's love was, and, I have to say, for a couple who stand as probably the most famous symbol of true love, their love doesn't seem to have been particularly real at all.

Also, an argument you seem to keep bringing up is that it's a different world with its own rules. Now, I disagree with that, but even if that were true, that would explain how upon meeting the first time Romeo and Juliet's love could be real, but why does Shakespeare then include Romeo's earlier infatuation with Rosaline? Why does he have the Friar point out to Romeo how quickly his affections have changed, and why does he have Romeo give such a - for lack of a better word - lame excuse?

[–] Weber4278 15 years ago

"Also, an argument you seem to keep bringing up is that it's a different world with its own rules. Now, I disagree with that, but even if that were true, that would explain how upon meeting the first time Romeo and Juliet's love could be real, but why does Shakespeare then include Romeo's earlier infatuation with Rosaline? Why does he have the Friar point out to Romeo how quickly his affections have changed, and why does he have Romeo give such a - for lack of a better word - lame excuse?"

All I meant was that Romeo and Juliet shouldn't be viewed by literal standards any more then say Cinderella.

The same could be said for a lot of movies and books, is Star Wars realistic? How about Moulin Rouge, Peter Pan etc? I'm just saying that in a lot Movies and Books Reality doesn't apply. We watch movies and read books to escape from reality to be entertained.

I always thought Romeo believed he loved Rosaline, it wasn't until he fell for Juliet that realized what true love was or at least that's what I thought good ol Shakespeare was trying to get across and of course because of that Romeo had to convince the Friar he really did love Juliet.

"I never said I didn't like Romeo & Juliet! I love Romeo & Juliet, it is beautifully written and tragic."

I'm sorry that came out wrong! I just meant we both have different opinions on things that's all.

"I'm merely analyzing how true Romeo and Juliet's love was, and, I have to say, for a couple who stand as probably the most famous symbol of true love, their love doesn't seem to have been particularly real at all."

Ah but that's what I'm trying to say Romeo and Juliet's love isn't 'real' it's fictional. Had Shakespeare wanted to portray 'real' love then his play would have lasted for days as we slowly watched Romeo and Juliet meet secretly over a period of months. But that's no fun to watch so basically he condensed those 'months' to a single 'night'. In my eyes that's what makes it a fable or a fairy tale, it isn't meant to be realistic anymore then Cinderella falling for Prince Charming at the ball.

I do get what you're saying Luanna225 and I like debating with you because if we all thought the same the world would be a boring place :)

[–] Luanna255 15 years ago

The same could be said for a lot of movies and books, is Star Wars realistic?

But that's exactly my point. No one is holding up Star Wars as an enduring symbol of science. Obviously, since the science in it is unrealistic and ridiculous. But with Romeo & Juliet, people seem to think the love portrayed in it is realistic and true, which I believe it is markedly not.

I always thought Romeo believed he loved Rosaline, it wasn't until he fell for Juliet that realized what true love was or at least that's what I thought good ol Shakespeare was trying to get across and of course because of that Romeo had to convince the Friar he really did love Juliet.

But a convincing reason is never given as to why Romeo and Juliet's love is deeper or truer. The best Romeo can come up with is that Juliet loves him back while Rosaline didn't? That's ridiculous. Indeed, as I wrote in my original post, Romeo uses almost identical phrases in praising Rosaline and Juliet. There's nothing in the text which to me which suggests that he only believed he loved Rosaline, whilst the Juliet relationship was true love.

Ah but that's what I'm trying to say Romeo and Juliet's love isn't 'real' it's fictional

And what I'M trying to say is that making the nature of human emotions unrealistic cannot be justified simply because the characters are fictional, and indeed the way Shakespeare portrayed "real" emotion in the most unrealistic of his plays is what makes people love them.

I do get what you're saying Luanna225 and I like debating with you because if we all thought the same the world would be a boring place :)

Thank you! I enjoy debating with you as well. I happen to disagree with what you're saying, but I understand the concept and you seem to be an intelligent person. I hate when people are so narrowminded that they dismiss anyone who disagrees with them as an "idiot". People who do that show themselves to be the true idiots. Talking with people who disagree with you is one of the best ways to grow and gain new perspectives on the world.

[–] roghache 15 years ago

Romeo and Juliet was the FIRST Shakespeare play I ever read, it's what made me fall in love with Shakespeare so naturally it will always hold a very special place in my heart

As with Weber, in my part of the world, 'Romeo and Juliet' is usually the first Shakespearean play students read in high school. They then move on to study MacBeth, Hamlet etc. in later years. Since teenagers are interested in love, this story appeals to them and gives at least some of them an appreciation of Shakespeare, probably more than any other of his plays would do. (Hopefully these students don't get the message that 'Romeo and Juliet' is about real love!)

And yes, there are lessons to be learned from it about the destructive power of long standing family feuds and bitter hateful relationships. My favourite part of the story has always been when Capulet and Montague make peace at the end.

[–] Luanna255 15 years ago

As with Weber, in my part of the world, 'Romeo and Juliet' is usually the first Shakespearean play students read in high school

Ah, maybe that's where I differ then. The first Shakespeare play I ever read was Julius Caesar in 9th grade, which I was "meh" on. Then I read King Lear the next year in 10th grade and fell in love. I remember reading the lines in Act 1, starting with Lear telling Cordelia "What can you say to draw a third more opulent than your sisters? Speak" and ending with Kent leaving, just acting them out to myself. I couldn't believe how real and beautiful the emotions were - and suddenly I understood what all the fuss about Shakespeare was about. It was a very clear and amazing experience, one that had a powerful effect on me.
Maybe if I'd had that experience with Romeo & Juliet instead of Lear, I would have thought Romeo & Juliet's love was real. But I would like to think my criticism of Shakespeare is impartial enough that it wouldn't really matter.

[–] roghache 15 years ago

The first Shakespearean play I read in high school (many years ago) was not 'Romeo and Juliet' but 'Henry IV Part I'. I did have some appreciation for it but was not enthralled, by any means. I read 'Julius Caesar' the following year and liked it much better. I believe a lot of scholars consider 'King Lear' his masterpiece, do they not?

[–] roghache 15 years ago

I don't subscribe to the love/hate school of thought either and find it lends itself to potentially being quite destructive for one or both parties. I didn't realize Shakespeare pioneered the depiction of this type of relationship which of course has become popular in novels and onscreen.

I'm not an English scholar so am unclear as to which of Shakespeare's writings genuinely captured his own ideas versus what he wrote because it would 'sell' or was popular with the audiences of his plays during that era. (No offense intended to those who may like this play but I find A Midsummer Night's Dream quite idiotic and have always liked to think Shakespeare penned it to appeal to an audience that wasn't any too bright!) Then, as now, stable relationships were probably perceived as boring, not making compelling theatre, as compared to all the excitement and drama of these love/hate relationships or lovestruck teenagers committing suicide.

I'm glad Luanna mentioned Othello! Shakespeare gave the world the expression 'green eyed monster' for jealousy and this play reveals very clearly exactly how destructive this emotion can be.

Some people do have a misguided view of love, equating it with the passion and intensity felt at the onset of a new relationship, a stage Romeo and Juliet never progressed beyond. For those with this view, this story does depict love to perfection. However, I'd like to believe that surely most adults are a little wiser than to believe this!

I think Weber makes a good point that 'Romeo and Juliet' has a fairy tale like quality to it, albeit with a tragic ending. I agree with Luanna about it being unfortunate that it's often held up 'in the real world' as the World's Greatest Love Story. Excellent point that Shakespeare implying this story is about real love is akin to if he'd claimed that MacBeth was all about an attempt to save Scotland!! Romeo and Juliet needs to be kept strictly in the 'fairy tale realm'.

[–] Luanna255 15 years ago

I'm not an English scholar so am unclear as to which of Shakespeare's writings genuinely captured his own ideas versus what he wrote because it would 'sell' or was popular with the audiences of his plays during that era

Not to worry, English scholars don't know that, either. ;-)
Kind of hard to know what the man really thought when we don't have anything personal that he wrote, like a diary or a letter. The closest we have is his sonnets, which at least MAY be autobiographical, but it's hard to use those to interpret how he really felt about issues.

(No offense intended to those who may like this play but I find A Midsummer Night's Dream quite idiotic and have always liked to think Shakespeare penned it to appeal to an audience that wasn't any too bright!)

In general, I personally tend to far prefer Shakespeare's tragedies to his comedies (which you can probably tell from my previous post, where I mentioned many of his major tragedies and none of his comedies, LOL). I don't think Shakespeare necessarily wrote them for a stupid audience, I think it's just that while tragedy never really changes, what was funny in the Elizabethan era simply isn't particularly funny now. As a result, it simply sounds stupid. Besides which there are a bunch of raunchy Elizabethan puns which in Elizabethan times would have been scandalously hilarious, but which aren't immediately evident to a modern reader. And, let's face it, once you're reduced to consulting footnotes to understand a joke, the chances of you finding the joke funny are pretty much lost.

[–] roghache 15 years ago

Again, kindred spirits! I vastly prefer the tragedies but confess to not having read or seen performed many of the comedies. I've heard previously the comment you made that Elizabethan puns go over our heads today so, if you're not an English scholar, no, it's not very enticing to make the effort with the footnotes!

My problem with A Midsummer Night's Dream, as I recall, wasn't the language (which I'm sure was up to Shakespeare's usual standards) but the fact that I'm not much interested in the King and Queen of the Fairies, everyone frolicing about and getting mixed up, and the 'donkey business' (the details of which, thankfully, I've managed through the years to forget!)

(I guess when they're still reading, performing, and quoting my plays 500 years later, I can criticize, right?!)

[–] Luanna255 15 years ago

Exactly! It isn't the language which is the problem. I will say that some of his comedies stand up better than others. While the footnotes thing still holds, Twelfth Night, As You Like It, and Much Ado About Nothing are still quite enjoyable, though not nearly as breathtaking as his tragedies. Midsummer Night's Dream I am merely neutral on - but the one and only Shakespeare play which I LOATHE is The Taming of the Shrew. Petruchio is abusive and manipulative to his wife, and this passes as comedy! It makes me sick. I firmly believe that women SHOULD be good and kind wives, and if Petruchio had PERSUADED Katherina I would have no problem, but the way he breaks her down infuriates me. Women are not horses, and they should not be TAMED, thank you very much. Yet to the Elizabethan man this was good fun, not offensive at all. Standards change. Maybe Elizabethans found plots involving women falling in love with donkey-headed men hilariously funny. I wouldn't know, but I guess they must have.

[–] roghache 15 years ago

No, women don't need to be tamed like horses, I agree! The very word 'shrew' used in the title of the play isn't itself very nice, IMO.

I agree with Weber that Romeo was trying to convey his feelings for Rosaline weren't real love (as he had thought), that he never knew what true love was until he met Juliet. However, given his young age, the rapid dismissal of Rosaline from his affections, and the fact that he and Juliet don't live past the first few days after meeting, that's highly questionable.

The Friar's skepticism seems quite understandable! Some might argue that Romeo killed himself for love of Juliet and wouldn't have done so for Rosaline but I agree with Luanna here, I don't see any evidence that his feelings for Juliet were any different than those for Rosaline. It seemed all based upon physical beauty. Juliet was apparently more beautiful than Rosaline (or he was ready for a change!) plus that lure of the forbidden compounded the initial attraction.

[–] Luanna255 15 years ago

Anyway, the Friar's skepticism seems quite understandable!

And yet he marries them anyway. Unfathomable to me. Romeo and Juliet were besotted teens, but what's his excuse? He's supposed to be a responsible adult. He should have known better. If not for him, Romeo and Juliet would not have gotten into half the trouble that they did.

[–] roghache 15 years ago

Yes, it did seem unfathomable so I just checked the text for some enlightenment!

Initially I thought (Act II Scene 6) that he saw these two were so wildly attracted to each other, they were surely destined to sleep together anyway so he thought it best to marry them proper ASAP!

For, by your leaves, you shall not stay alone
Till holy church incorporate two in one.

However,I read through the earlier scene (Act II Scene 3) where Romeo is trying to convince the good Friar that he never loved Rosaline as he now loves Juliet. Friar Lawrence isn't easily hoodwinked and perceives the attraction is all physical:

Is Rosaline, whom thou didst love so dear,
So soon forsaken? young men's love then lies
Not truly in their hearts, but in their eyes.

I eventually discovered why he goes through with the marriage anyway, despite not being fooled as to any difference between Romeo's affections for Juliet vs. Rosaline:

For this alliance may so happy prove,
To turn your households' rancour to pure love.

It sounds like he married the pair, not because he was convinced of their deep love for each other but because he felt it would bring about reconciliation between the Capulet and Montague families. A foolhardy supposition but it's easy to see how upset he would have been over the years of strife and violence that affected so many in Verona -- distant relatives, friends, and servants of the feuding families -- and how desperately he would have longed for peace.

Of course the whole 'fake death' potion was a harebrained scheme at best! However, Friar Lawrence, having done the ill advised deed of marrying these two, is cast as meaning well and the one person sympathetic to their plight.

[–] Luanna255 15 years ago

Yeah, that's pretty much how I saw it as well. He didn't believe that their love was really true at all.
The faked death plot was stupid enough, but my absolute "favorite" is when the Friar comes and finds Romeo dead. Juliet wakes up and asks him "Where is my Romeo?" The Friar informs her that both Romeo and Paris are dead, and tells her to come with him, and he will take her to a nunnery. Juliet refuses to come, and - here comes my favorite part - the Friar just LEAVES her there! IDIOT!! What did he THINK she was going to do? What was so pressing that he couldn't have stayed around and made sure she was ok?

[–] rlil2001 15 years ago

R&J has a lot of people acting pretty rashly. Juliet calls their courting "too rash, too unadvis'd, too sudden" and neatly captures a big motif of the play in that one line. Juliet is, after all, the perceptive and rational one, and Romeo the intuitive, highly emotional one. They compliment each other very well. Thing is, they both got swept up, and clearly, they both were ready to be, whether or not they knew it.

Romeo wanted to be in love. Why? Did he want a wife? Emotional connection? Some purpose other than being kind of ignored by his parents and hanging out with his buddies? Juliet hadn't thought much about love. She's all, "Marriage? Um...whatever. I know you're not gonna force me to marry Paris so I'll check him out because you're telling me to." Both were only children and too aware of the violence and oppressive societal roles surrounding them. Customs tended to trump feelings and needs. Romeo and Juliet were both the sole hope of their respective households. They were probably kept away from each other, since they'd never met despite living in the same city all their young lives.

Whatever happened between them, and as fast as it all happened, I think they both filled a need within the other that they weren't really aware of. Their meeting imho is written almost as if they were taking up an old conversation where they'd left off. Their subsequent dialog flow naturally and poetically as if they were made for each other.

So their love story isn't all about infatuation, I think. I do think they saw in each other a great deal, in a short time--beauty and wit and a light amongst the oppressive chaos of the feud. They could find a kinship in each other and perhaps not have to resign themselves to arranged marriages. Who knows how they planned to tell their families they were married and not cause a major street fight... R&J were kind of lonely because they were such sensitive, intelligent kids who didn't fit their world. I think it's completely natural they'd find each other.

However, I think Romeo was on a destructive path in some ways and took Juliet with him. He was prone to premonitions and seemed to want a way out of his boredom ("despis'd life"). He wanted desperately to fall in love, and as the saying goes, be careful what you wish for. His killing Tybalt was one rash act on top of another (right after the marriage). IMHO, he was well meaning, but destructive to himself and others.

Juliet I think was subconsciously looking for a way out of the doldrums as well. She knew her fate in the world--marry some guy your parents pick and hope you survive childbirth. Romeo wasn't an expected figure in her future--the fact that they both took so well to each other had to come as a shock to both. They chose to go with it ("he that hath the steerage of my course direct my sail"/"I gave thee mine before thou didst request it") instead of play it safe.

The fact that they were willing to risk everything bespoke of rashness on both their parts, but perhaps a desire to escape what was expected of them. Not so much rebellion but a desire to have actual contact, actual emotion that wasn't itemized and arranged, a desire to be with someone and to stop feeling overly sheltered and caught up in the negativity of the town politics.

***********
Don't click 'reply' unless you're replying to this specific message. Thanks!!!

[–] Luanna255 15 years ago

rlil2001, I think your idea is connected to mine. Impulsiveness, rashness, discontent, passion, physical attraction - these are all immediate, surface emotions, not the root of true love at all. Using each other as an escape mechanism is not really love and can lead to some terrible decisions.

Whatever happened between them, and as fast as it all happened, I think they both filled a need within the other that they weren't really aware of. Their meeting imho is written almost as if they were taking up an old conversation where they'd left off. Their subsequent dialog flow naturally and poetically as if they were made for each other.

An excellent point, something I'd never noticed! It really does seem as if they're striking up an old conversation again. Still, in the end it's really just flirting. The most beautiful and witty flirting ever written - Shakespeare WAS a genius, after all - but no more true or meaningful than what teenagers engage in at parties today.

R&J were kind of lonely because they were such sensitive, intelligent kids who didn't fit their world. I think it's completely natural they'd find each other

But they don't connect on the basis of their intelligence or sensitivity. The only thing they connect on is each others beauty. They never talk about anything even remotely intelligent, and while I suppose their love itself could be sign of sensitivity, they hardly knew each other long enough to have recognized each others sensitivity. If indeed they possessed sensitivity and intelligence in the first place, which I think is highly debatable.

[–] roghache 15 years ago

Brilliant though Shakespeare's words are, sometimes his plot/character details are unbelievable. Friar Lawrence claims 'the watch is coming' and he 'dare not stay' but it doesn't seem to me remotely possible that the Friar would leave this distraught girl unattended at the tomb. Yet Shakespeare has him doing so, really just to get him out of the way so Juliet can be free to take her own life.

[–] Luanna255 15 years ago

True. But the irony is that the more I comb through Romeo & Juliet to find material for my argument, the more I just fall in love with Shakespeare's writing. And in the end... Yeah, I still believe their love was nothing real or true, but who am I kidding? I WILL cry in the end, my heart WILL melt a little at how cute they are. It's impossible not to. And even though their love wasn't really true, it's still horrific that they had to die for it. They should have been given the chance to grow up and realize if they truly loved each other or not and do whatever else they wanted to do with their lives. Instead the hatred between their families was so strong, it destroyed them.

[–] roghache 15 years ago

Oh I agree! Whenever I watch this movie, I always find myself hoping against hope that the 'right' messenger will get through to Mantua on his slow mule faster than the 'wrong' one on his galloping steed! For all that none of it's true love, it doesn't ruin the story for me in the least.

[–] sarastro7 15 years ago

It's correct to say that Romeo and Juliet don't really seem to love each other for substantial reasons, like their personalities. However, that very circumstance is part of the point. Their love is UNCONDITIONAL. They know at a glance that they will be forever devoted to each other. The play indeed does explore the deep nature of unconditional and uncontaminated love. The *concept* - not a realistic example of a concrete relationship between some happenstance individuals. Every element of the play is part of a larger and consistent structure. The point of what's going on in the play isn't something literal. R & J represent the concepts of reason and emotion, and how these ought to interplay. It is about abstract and personified conceptualizations; it's not supposed to show the interactions of real human beings. To criticize the play for not showing real love on the grounds that the characters are not showing enough humanity is, I'm afraid, to miss the point. The play is exceedingly about love - the truest and deepest kind there is. But it is demonstrating abstract emotional mechanisms rather than trying to describe two actual human beings. And that's what makes it great art.

[–] rlil2001 15 years ago

I don't think there's any way to tell how deep the love was, or the finer points of their characters. Shakespeare has them doomed by the stars, incapable of preventing their...oh god, love boat, from being driven onto the rocks. (sorry about that) Some people meet and it's an instant attraction that lasts. Wouldn't that be great in real life... But R&J's lives already were complicated--I think the simplicity was in following their hearts, no matter the risk. I think that speaks to a depth of feeling.

For example, there is no one reason Romeo decided to kill Tybalt, or himself. He was flawed--there's a backstory we never know about. Despite all this, the audience loves him, and understands Juliet's love for him. How'd an impulsive kid who ignores his own psychic intuition, who kills two people plus himself, garner such sympathy? Shakespeare had skill. Romeo just was LIKE that.

As for the connection between the two luuvers, physical attributes are usually the thing that makes the first impression. Things happen fast in plays, and logic sometimes flies out the window. Juliet's father changes his mind twice about bumping up the marriage schedule. The friar leaves Juliet alone in the cell when the watch approaches. And so on. I think the story is part fantasy, part very accurate. R&J spoke beautifully to each other, but they did a lot of stupid teenagery stuff. I do think they were sweet, misguided kids who desperately needed attention and affection. They had an instant rapport, and then, everything went wrong. That's not far from real life...although I don't know how often it is that everything would take place inside of a week.

***********
Don't click 'reply' unless you're replying to this specific message. Thanks!!!

[–] byubarbie2002 15 years ago

Thanks so much for the laughs. (serial killer-lol) I justed watched the movie again and needed that.
Anyway, most of the other posts are so long winded, I didn't bother to read, so if this was said already, I appologize in advance.
My take on the whole thing is that in a time of arranged marriages, rather than being promised to someone they have only just met, and may not be phsyically attracted to, this was a way of Romeo and Juliet to take their lives into their own hands, quite litterally. It could be seen as teen rebellion, but I believe they simply wanted to find the person they had to spend eternity with beautiful on the outside and felt the rest would come naturally.
I believe they thought if they were married already their parents would have to accept it....at least until Romeo became the horrible 'cousin killer'.

HTH

I dare no longer stay...

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] karana_geldar 15 years ago

One thing that continues to attract me again and again to Romeo and Juliet is how Shakespeare captures not just love, but first love. In all it's beauty, suddeness, desparation and seeming incoherance.

"Oh gentle Romeo,/ if thou dost love, pronounce it faithfully."

"Give me my Romeo; and, when he shall die,/ Take him and cut him out in little stars,"

You also have to consider the fact R+J's love is fueled not just by the "ancient grudge" of their two houses, but by the unfolding situation that is before them. Juliet's impending marriage and Romeo's exile, both of these events push the relationship beyond what it would have gone had Romeo met her and courted her in the ordinary way. (And it is my opinion that old Capulet may not have been unwilling to unite the two houses had he not tried to marry his daughter to a kinsman of Escalus).

Like someone said before, there is something to be said against haste in this play. Juliet (the more level-headed of our two lovers) states this in Act 2, Scene 2:

although I joy in thee,/I have no joy of this contract to-night:/It is too rash, too unadvised, too sudden;/ Too like the lightning, which doth cease to be /Ere one can say 'It lightens.'

The original poem, The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet, has a much longer timeframe. They meet around Christmas I think and get married at Easter.

As for the unrealisticness of the story line, such as the coincidences and the events that need to happen for plot's sake. Shakespeare addresses this in the opening prologue:

The which if you with patient ears attend, /What here shall miss, our toil shall strive to mend.

He is asking us to forgive the telling of the story for the sake of the story itself and what is about to unfold. These two lines aren't in the film IIRC.

Oh, and for the record. I do like Midsummer Night's Dream but only the ending scene, the play which is hilarious. Other plays I like are King Lear, Othello, Richard III, Henry V (Oh for a muse of fire!), Julius Caesar and my favourite of all of them is Hamlet.

Obi-Wan is my hero!

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Luanna255 15 years ago

I think what you're asking here is really 'what IS real love' which is not an easy question to answer. It is of course true that 'real' love is largely based on mutual caring, compatibility and personality traits. But i think that with extreme physical attraction, (where it feels like life without them will stop) comes a type of bond that ensures fidelity, extreme care, understanding and patience. When you love someone that much they become your benchmark for beauty, you can sacrifice or tolerate anything and love them still. This makes it more likely that you will put in more effort, making the relationship last. I think these days people are more willing to break up and move on. I fell in love at 17 and at 22 still want no-one else. my 2c

EDIT: I know i'm young, naive, first love etc.
But- people can be married for 15 years and then divorce. does that mean that their love was any less 'true'?

I don't think you're naive, per se. There are many people who are not young at all and have been through many relationships, and still think exactly as you do. It's a quite common view on love, but nevertheless I disagree with it very strongly (I'm not insulting YOU, here; I don't know you, or judge you, and you are entitled to your own beliefs.)

The problem with extreme physical attraction is that, moral issues aside (I want someone to love me for who I am, not what I look like) quite simply attraction does not always last. In the short term, yes, attraction combined with the infatuation or obsession which it so often accompanies can ensure fidelity, care, etc. However, attraction almost always wears off, or has periods of not being very evident. While of course people can continue to be attracted to each other for years, if not for life, there are almost always "off" periods, or periods when one person feels like something new or is attracted to someone else. If the love is not rooted in anything deeper than attraction, there would be no reason to stick together and fight for the relationship when this happens.

Similarly, no one is going to be anyone's "benchmark of beauty" for life. Sad but true. As we age, we get less good-looking. This is a fact. No matter how many technological advances are made in this arena, no matter how often we are told that "beauty has no age", this remains a fact and probably always will be. If two people are in love for deep and true reasons, as they age they will stick it out even if they are no longer each others' "benchmark of beauty", and possibly will still remain beautiful in each others' eyes (when we feel strongly for someone, we somewhat lose objectivity). However, if the love is only rooted in physical beauty, then when the beauty fades the "love" will as well and the relationship will crumble.

As for people who are married 15 years and then divorce, people get divorced for a multitude of reasons and I cannot judge or generalize. However, if anything, this seems to support my argument. Many times people get divorced because they got married based purely on infatuation and attraction, and later discovered their spouse was not a good person or not suited personality-wise, or else the attraction simply faded away and they saw no reason to stick around.

[–] roghache 15 years ago

I agree again, Luanna! I don't believe physical attraction has much to do with ensuring fidelity, understanding etc. True, it's often the spark that inspires the two people to get to know each other better in the first place and embark upon a relationship which hopefully becomes based on other than the initial attraction. However, in other instances, the person isn't particularly attracted initially but as he/she spends time with the other person (same workplace, classes etc.), gets to know this person better, and begins to really like him/her, they find they are now physically attracted as well!

You're absolutely correct about the aging business which unfortunately even nowadays is far harsher on women than on men. I'm not saying the reverse never happens but how often does a middle aged man leave his still-attractive-but-now-starting-to-show-her-age-a-bit wife in favour of a gorgeous young thing? It's common enough to be almost a cliche.

[–] scott_brady 15 years ago

Wow. Luanna255, I wish you were in one of my freshman English classes! You'd get an A, for sure. Excellent points. I happen to agree with you. What I enjoy about Romeo and Juliet is the beautiful language. It's amazing that the same language I hear in the hallways of my school coming out of the mouths of fifteen-year-olds, is the same language used by Shakespeare. It's amazing what language can do and what it can be when used well.

[–] Illyngophobia 15 years ago

I think Romeo and Juliet were in lust,rather than love.

"Life is pleasant.Death is peaceful.It's the transition that's troublesome." - Isaac Asimov