From: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference [SHAKSPER@eae.shaksper.net]
on behalf of Hardy M. Cook [editor@eae.shaksper.net]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 06:55
To: SHAKSPER@eae.shaksper.net
Subject: SHK 13.1160 Re: Romeo and Juliet

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1160  Monday, 29 April 2002

[1]     From:   Jimmy Jung <Jimmy.Jung@entrust.com>
        Date:   Friday, 26 Apr 2002 10:35:25 -0400
        Subj:   More Romeo and Juliet

[2]     From:   Brian Willis <bwillis90660@yahoo.com>
        Date:   Friday, 26 Apr 2002 10:22:40 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1149 Re: Romeo and Juliet

[3]     From:   Brian Willis <bwillis90660@yahoo.com>
        Date:   Friday, 26 Apr 2002 11:13:20 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: Romeo and Juliet


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jimmy Jung <Jimmy.Jung@entrust.com>
Date:           Friday, 26 Apr 2002 10:35:25 -0400
Subject:        More Romeo and Juliet

 "Juliet, the dice were loaded from the start."
        -M. Knopler

Philip Weller is right, the Chorus calls R & J star-crossed and the Chorus is not alone.  Romeo's "mind misgives some consequence yet hanging in the stars."  Juliet's "ill-diving soul" sees Romeo in his grave.  The Prince himself, attributes their death to Heaven finding means to "kill their joys with love."  They meet by chance, as do Tybalt and Mercutio, fate gives us a quarantined priest, a handy and impoverished pharmacist and the whole tomb thing is a mess of bad timing and bad luck.  That's how it goes with these tragedies.  If it weren't for pirates, handkerchiefs and witches where would we be.

As I recall, Author Brooks' source story also laid the blame at the feet of fate.  Thankfully, Shakespeare was never one to play straight with his source material, or else what would we go on nattering about.  So, while everyone is diving illly, they can also see that these two are headed for a trouble of their own making.  Juliet knows their love is "too much like the lightning ... too rash, too unadvised, too sudden" Could the Friar have made it any clearer, "love moderately ... they
stumble that run fast."  But does our boy listen?   Nooooo!!!  Instead
he ends up killing Tybalt, and seals the tragedy with perhaps the most lunk-headed mistake attributable to a Shakespearian "hero."  Remember ...

Tybalt was already dead.

The law would have ended the life of Tybalt; where does Romeo get off calling himself fortune's fool.  In his final rash act, without even checking up on the Friar, who has choreographed everything, our rash hero ignores common sense.  He sees the crimson in her lips and in her cheeks.  Juliet has been dead for at least a couple of days now, but Death's pale flag has not advanced on her and, instead of taking a deep breath and counting to ten, our boy drinks it off.  Say what you want, but it is Romeo, "laying everybody low with a lovesong that he made."

Nevertheless, my characterization of Romeo as a sap, is primarily intended as a comment on the character in performance and based on my own collection of empirical evidence.  If you want to be hard nosed, you might just as easily argue that Hamlet, Othello and Lear are all saps, but I never feel that way about them.  For whatever reason, in performance it is a rare occasion when an actor playing Romeo can grab my sympathy and make me see him as the hero and not the sap.  I'm willing to split the blame between me, the performer and even the playwright, but that's the way it is.  So I don't ignore the Chorus, as David and Philip suggest.  Nor can I imagine a production that treats the play as a lesson in children behaving or not listening to their parents (a very crude characterization of L. Swilley's critique).  I certainly believe the material is there, if someone was so inclined, but also suspect that the "star-crossed evidence" is there just to prevent such a perspective.

It occurs to me that one other reason to introduce fate or the stars as an active hand in the play might be the lack of a villain.  Using the sap-argument, Hamlet, Othello and Lear are in tragedies of their own making, but there are also villains on which to attribute much of the circumstance.  Without a villain (Tybalt seems weak for the part), we need somewhere else to shift blame.  Huh; just a thought.

One might also argue that by discounting the hand of fate in a production, you are better positioned to justify Romeo's actions as entirely sprung from his passion. After all, when Tony kills Bernardo, the stars never come into play and I'm completely sympathetic.

Jimmy - who was type cast as a shark (I think that makes me a Capulet)

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Brian Willis <bwillis90660@yahoo.com>
Date:           Friday, 26 Apr 2002 10:22:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:        Re: SHK 13.1149 Re: Romeo and Juliet

This is an intriguing thread and everyone is posting intelligent and well thought opinions on the topic.

I would like us to consider however how the feud DOES play into all of this. Could Romeo and Juliet come out in the open with their marriage? Of course they could. But what would be the consequences of such an action? Their parents would certainly not condone the match. This is why they conduct the marriage in private. In fact, Romeo appears to be on the way to telling his parents about the marriage when the duel occurs. Yes, there are significant decisions made but they are star-crossed by fate - the long feud has acted upon them to force their love to be hidden.  There are a combination of decisions made which are pressured by outside influences. Of course, we can also recognize that the feud and the continuation of the rancor (as well as the apparent end to it at the end of the play) are decisions made, not fate. Perhaps it is a little bit of both.

Brian Willis

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Brian Willis <bwillis90660@yahoo.com>
Date:           Friday, 26 Apr 2002 11:13:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:        Re: Romeo and Juliet

Actually, thinking about this again, the phrase "misadventur'd piteous overthrows" leaps out at me. It indicates our emotional connection - "piteous" - but also the overwhelming circumstances that oppress their attempts to overthrow hate and live in love. Certainly the two have their faults, but they don't even approach the direct villainy of later characters and even protagonists of Shakespeare. Because of their love's contrast to the hate surrounding them, they stand out as rebels in a way. I'm always perceived Romeo as being sucked back in when Mercutio is killed.  "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in." Certainly, it's not a character flaw of Romeo that causes Mercutio to be killed, just bad luck, ie. fate.  The feud strikes again. What a piteous attempt to overthrow all of the hate that surrounds them.

Brian Willis

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, editor@shaksper.net
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the editor assumes no responsibility for them.
