OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

[KorvinStarmast]

There are easier ways to not consider Romeo and Juliet a tragedy. However, looking at them as protagonists, and through the intent of the author, it is a tragedy.

For the Duke it's a success story, because finally the two families stop feuding.

[Resileaf]

Sure, it is a tragedy. And I don't want to consider it not a tragedy, I want to rewrite it so it's not a tragedy.

Go publish your rewriting of Romeo and Juliet with blackjack and hookers if you think you can make it work, then.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

There are easier ways to not consider Romeo and Juliet a tragedy. However, looking at them as protagonists, and through the intent of the author, it is a tragedy.

Like, for example, reading the original, which is a simple morality play in which the rebellious children get what they deserve for not following moral laws about respecting their elders. You may dislike the moral of the story, but the story itself is not a tragedy.

Grey Wolf

[The_Weirdo]

Like, for example, reading the original, which is a simple morality play in which the rebellious children get what they deserve for not following moral laws about respecting their elders. You may dislike the moral of the story, but the story itself is not a tragedy.

Grey Wolf

Well, the elders are a bunch of perverts who believe their children are their property.

[Keltest]

Well, the elders are a bunch of perverts who believe their children are their property.

I think you have fairly thoroughly demonstrated that you missed the point of the story, if that was your takeaway.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I think you have fairly thoroughly demonstrated that you missed the point of the story, if that was your takeaway.

More like, in usual T_W fashion, when presented to an answer to a challenge he thought impossible, he immediately descends into non sequitur territory in a transparent attempt to change the topic.

Grey Wolf

[The_Weirdo]

I think you have fairly thoroughly demonstrated that you missed the point of the story, if that was your takeaway.

The point of the story is that when you are a bunch of lunatics that think your kids are your property they die and someone stronger forces you two make peace with your enemies.

[Keltest]

The point of the story is that when you are a bunch of lunatics that think your kids are your property they die and someone stronger forces you two make peace with your enemies.

I stand by my statement.

[The_Weirdo]

I stand by my statement.

Well, at the very least one of the takeaways anyone from our time would draw from the story is that the elders are in the wrong for trying to impose their wills on whom the two love.

[Peelee]

Are you just trolling us at this point? The Bard derived R&J from an older Italian story. Shakespeare borrowed his plot from an original Italian tale. It is believed Romeo and Juliette were based on actual characters from Verona

That's good to know, since it's the worst thing the dude wrote by far and I'll rail against the teacher unfortunate enough to think my child should spend a second on it in school.

[woweedd]

That's good to know, since it's the worst thing the dude wrote by far and I'll rail against the teacher unfortunate enough to think my child should spend a second on it in school.

Oh God, you're one of those insufferable Shakespeare hipsters. Just because R&J is his most popular play doesn't mean it's his worst. Not while Taming Of The Shrew still draws breath.

[The_Weirdo]

Oh God, you're one of those insufferable Shakespeare hipsters. Just because R&J is his most popular play doesn't mean it's his worst. Not while Taming Of The Shrew still draws breath.

Good news for you, then, stage plays don't breathe.

[zimmerwald1915]

Like, for example, reading the original, which is a simple morality play in which the rebellious children get what they deserve for not following moral laws about respecting their elders. You may dislike the moral of the story, but the story itself is not a tragedy.

Grey Wolf

The play obeys the conventions of tragedy, and has "tragedy" in the title. Whether it is good tragedy is debatable, but that it is tragedy really isn't.

Nor is being a morality tale exclusive with or co-extensive with a particular dramatic form. The Orestia is a morality tale, and is tragic enough. Likewise Lysistrata teaches basically the same moral, and is a complete farce.

[Peelee]

Oh God, you're one of those insufferable Shakespeare hipsters. Just because R&J is his most popular play doesn't mean it's his worst. Not while Taming Of The Shrew still draws breath.

Please, tell me what Romeo and Julie knew about each other than than their looks, names, and eventually, what family they belonged to.

[zimmerwald1915]

Please, tell me what Romeo and Julie knew about each other than than their looks, names, and eventually, what family they belonged to.

That they each had a way with words and that they had a mutual friend/Yenta in Friar Lawrence

[The_Weirdo]

Please, tell me what Romeo and Julie knew about each other than than their looks, names, and eventually, what family they belonged to.

Okay. So far we have someone arguing R&J is a morality tale about obeying one's parents, someone arguing it's bad, someone arguing the characters should have burnt down Verona in order to get married and people arguing the play is good. Anything else?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The play obeys the conventions of tragedy, and has "tragedy" in the title.

[citation needed]. Bandello didn't title his novellas, as far as I can determine. Although I will grant that the morals might have been added by the translators, rather than being written in explicitly by Bandello himself.

Grey Wolf

[The_Weirdo]

Bandello

You wouldn't believe what I read at first. *snickers like a kid in the fifth grade*

[Ironsmith]

I do think Romeo should have slaughtered his own family and Juliet should have poisoned hers, because the lives of their families became worth less than their choices the moment they placed restrictions on them regarding whom to love.

I'd like to take a minute to point out that they never actually did that... actively placed restrictions on whom their children could love, I mean. Due to the nature of those feuding families, neither Romeo nor Juliet ever actually told their families about their affections for each other, based on the presumption that such news would not be taken well. Half the story's drama is based on that little bit of irony, and it would have gone in another direction entirely were it not present. There's even a few scenes that suggest lords Montague and Capulet are fairly sentimental folks, and given that they agree to bury the hatchet in the end (when Romeo and Juliet are both dead), it can be inferred that most of the plot could've been avoided, had Romeo or Juliet fessed up. (Or it could be stretched into a daytime soap opera by causing the families to fracture internally, giving us a couple dozen more points of conflict.)

[zimmerwald1915]

[QUOTE=Grey_Wolf_c;23643481][citation needed]. Bandello didn't title his novellas, as far as I can determine./QUOTE]
Fair enough, the English translation which Shakespeare (not speaking Italian) used as the source of Romeo and Juliet had "tragical" in the title. My memory was off.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Please, tell me what Romeo and Julie knew about each other than than their looks, names, and eventually, what family they belonged to.

You may enjoy the Discworld version better, then:

The disc's greatest lovers were undoubtedly Mellius and Gretelina, whose pure, passionate and soul-searing affair would have scorched the pages of History if they had not, because of some unexplained quirk of fate, been born two hundred years apart on different continents. However, the gods took pity on them and turned him into an ironing board* and her into a small brass bollard.

*When you're a god, you don't have to have reasons.

(That's literally all we hear about them, AFAIK)

Grey Wolf

[The_Weirdo]

I'd like to take a minute to point out that they never actually did that... actively placed restrictions on whom their children could love, I mean. Due to the nature of those feuding families, neither Romeo nor Juliet ever actually told their families about their affections for each other, based on the presumption that such news would not be taken well. Half the story's drama is based on that little bit of irony, and it would have gone in another direction entirely were it not present. There's even a few scenes that suggest lords Montague and Capulet are fairly sentimental folks, and given that they agree to bury the hatchet in the end (when Romeo and Juliet are both dead), it can be inferred that most of the plot could've been avoided, had Romeo or Juliet fessed up. (Or it could be stretched into a daytime soap opera by causing the families to fracture internally, giving us a couple dozen more points of conflict.)

Everything else you said is decently arguable (as in, I'm on the fence), but didn't the parents bury the hatchet only after the Duke basically showed up with the big proverbial guns?

[Peelee]

You may enjoy the Discworld version better, then:


(That's literally all we hear about them, AFAIK)

Grey Wolf

I do indeed. I also enjoy the Douglas Adams-like humor.

[Keltest]

Everything else you said is decently arguable (as in, I'm on the fence), but didn't the parents bury the hatchet only after the Duke basically showed up with the big proverbial guns?

No. It was specifically the deaths of the two kids that caused them to realize how stupid they were being. The Duke got involved in a general sense several times, but he couldn't actually force them to stop the feud, just stop the overt violence.

[The_Weirdo]

No. It was specifically the deaths of the two kids that caused them to realize how stupid they were being. The Duke got involved in a general sense several times, but he couldn't actually force them to stop the feud, just stop the overt violence.

Fancy that. I wonder how the duke would have reacted if Mercutio hadn't actually started the fight that caused his death, instead being just an actual innocent bystander.

[Keltest]

Fancy that. I wonder how the duke would have reacted if Mercutio hadn't actually started the fight that caused his death, instead being just an actual innocent bystander.

Similarly, probably. As I recall, by the time he got there, Romeo was the only involved party left alive, and he hadn't killed Mercutio.

[hamishspence]

And, in this context, I'm pondering how to make it so R&J isn't a tragedy.

In Mercedes Lackey's Heralds of Valdemar books, the novel Closer to Home draws heavily on the R&J story.

"Romeo" attempts to murder everyone in both families, except "Juliet", frame the whole thing as a "tragic accident" - marry Juliet, and inherit all the wealth of both families.

Fortunately, his plot fails, only a few are killed, he ends up being shot dead while attempting to escape justice, and "Juliet" lives, sadder but wiser.

The Herald protagonist of the story fills the "Mercutio" role, of getting involved in a fight between "Romeo" and "Tybalt" - luckily for him, he's only slightly wounded.

[The_Weirdo]

In Mercedes Lackey's Heralds of Valdemar books, the novel Closer to Home draws heavily on the R&J story.

"Romeo" attempts to murder everyone in both families, except "Juliet", frame the whole thing as a "tragic accident" - marry Juliet, and inherit all the wealth of both families.

Fortunately, his plot fails, only a few are killed, he ends up being shot dead while attempting to escape justice, and "Juliet" lives, sadder but wiser.

In my version, both are, one, more competent, two, on the same page.

[hamishspence]

The point of the Lackey version, is that Romeo is kind of a villain from the start - just very good at concealing it.

[The_Weirdo]

The point of the Lackey version, is that Romeo is kind of a villain from the start - just very good at concealing it.

Right. Ah well. I have to step out for a bit. Don't you folks argue for weird and violent things while I'm out, you hear?