Romeo and Juliet is not very much like romance novels. It’s just as dysfunctional, only in different ways. In a modern romance, you at least get some idea why the people end up liking each other.
As I understand it, the whole point of R&J (or at least one interpretation) is that it’s making fun of that kind of “romance novel” attitude; the two teenagers just met and they’re over the top with how in love they are. And this is just a few days after Romeo was madly in love with Rosalind.
I’m not sure that’s totally fair. Sonnet 130, for instance, essentially makes fun of romantic poetry by subverting it: instead of waxing eloquently about his love’s beauty, Shakespeare makes fun of over-the-top descriptions.
Yes, but there’s no doubt that he’s making fun of it. Romeo and Juliet is tragic; it’s pretty clear we’re supposed to feel sorry for R&J, not slyly laugh at them.
Authors are probably less fond of subtlety in times and places where being misinterpreted can get you executed. (Except, of course, when being correctly interpreted would get them executed.)
Romeo & Juliet is a tragedy, not a comedy. They are children in love with the idea of love rather than mystical soul-mates. The tragedy is that they are killed by various circumstances, not that they lost some amazing, transcendent love.
While Romeo’s wholehearted dedication to the idea of love (starting with Rosaline and then fixing on Juliet) is somewhat humorous and possibly satirical, but the bulk of the play is tragedy, not satire or romance.
Honestly, I find those who think Romeo & Juliet is a romance rather stupid and somewhat disturbing. If Romeo & Juliet is the apex of romance, I’d like something else, please.
As I understand it, the whole point of R&J (or at least one interpretation) is that it’s making fun of that kind of “romance novel” attitude; the two teenagers just met and they’re over the top with how in love they are. And this is just a few days after Romeo was madly in love with Rosalind.
That would be a modern re-interpretation, not a 1600-ish interpretation. Humor was not subtle, dark, and ironic back then.
Don Quixote was written at the same time, and was making fun of romance novels. It’s very different.
I’m not sure that’s totally fair. Sonnet 130, for instance, essentially makes fun of romantic poetry by subverting it: instead of waxing eloquently about his love’s beauty, Shakespeare makes fun of over-the-top descriptions.
Yes, but there’s no doubt that he’s making fun of it. Romeo and Juliet is tragic; it’s pretty clear we’re supposed to feel sorry for R&J, not slyly laugh at them.
Authors are probably less fond of subtlety in times and places where being misinterpreted can get you executed. (Except, of course, when being correctly interpreted would get them executed.)
Romeo & Juliet is a tragedy, not a comedy. They are children in love with the idea of love rather than mystical soul-mates. The tragedy is that they are killed by various circumstances, not that they lost some amazing, transcendent love.
While Romeo’s wholehearted dedication to the idea of love (starting with Rosaline and then fixing on Juliet) is somewhat humorous and possibly satirical, but the bulk of the play is tragedy, not satire or romance.
Honestly, I find those who think Romeo & Juliet is a romance rather stupid and somewhat disturbing. If Romeo & Juliet is the apex of romance, I’d like something else, please.