Romeo & Juliet is not about love; it is about hate.
This is a simple matter that is overlooked by many, in fact, most. What does one usually recall about arguably the most famous play (at least in Western Culture) ever?
The "star-crossed lovers." They remember how tragic it is that these two healthy, young lovers are kept apart by death, that (according to most modern interpretations) only moments after Romeo ends his own life that Juliet arises alive, well, in jubilation, thinking she will see her "prince" in an equal state.
Maybe they blame bad timing or poor communication, or don't bother to think at all and instead lament just how unfair the whole matter is without bothering to fully recall why. They may call it unfair or shake their head at the families' "silliness" that lead to such destruction. They seem to understand the cause of the tragedy and yet, it seems to escape them at the same time. Somehow, in the end, they think the play is about love. They remember it as a love story.
Yet, it's not like Shakespeare tries to hide the real subject matter. The point is made fairly bloody obvious in both the opening and closing of the play and in Mercutio's final words, "A plague o' both your houses!/They have made worms' meat of me" (3.1.1612-13).
What we are supposed to learn about is not love but hate. Hate destroys their love. Hate is what kills them both and kills Mercutio and, of course, Tybalt. It is the feud of the houses that creates the danger and tears apart any chance at happiness. Most importantly, it is the hate of the their PARENTS and ancestors that tears them apart. The damned mindset passed down like a poisonous heirloom.
We remember Romeo and Juliet because they tried to remove themselves from the will, so to speak. We cite them as great and wondrous lovers, and while that may be true, that they could (unknowingly albeit) find love amongst the crowd of haters (no colloquial pun intended), we focus too much on their connection, and occasionally too much on their own personal tragedy, and not on the lesson we are supposed to learn from it all.
If anything, teens seem to take away from the whole affair that nothing should keep two people who love each other apart, sometimes falsely assuming that their spurs of hormonal obsession are equivalent to the type of love you die for (and since Romeo and Juliet are in the same age group, perhaps here they are right -- and both they and the characters are wrong). But that is not the point.
It's a warning. We're not supposed to hate each other for being different or just because our families hate each other. We're not supposed to contribute to the divide already created by our disagreements.
What we should be doing is seeing what we have in common and creating bridges, working together to overcome our differences, compromising, and/or turning the other damned cheek.
Shakespeare likely chose two head-over-heels, adorable, passionate lovers because he knew everyone would care about them. Then, to make his point, he murdered them. They were a plot device. He was trying to force us to feel the pain of our hate, by taking away something we loved, but he made them too lovable. They were too successful. They were too much a thing for us to like. He succeeded in making us feel bad that they are gone, but we feel so bad that - just like people in real tragedies - we are unable to look past the bad feelings and confusion and get the point.
At best we overlook the lesson, simply citing it as unfair, and at worst, we transfer our hate onto the families themselves, blaming them, hating these fictional beings.
If the the references to Romeo and Juliet in general, and their title as one of the world's greatest loves isn't enough to prove this misinterpretation, then just take a look at our world today.
Think about. The divide between those who are different is both colliding and deepening. The closer we get, the more open we are about our differences, the more others begin to accept each other, the more the ones who can't open up and accept hate us, and we, in turn, in true human, hypocritical nature, hate them back.
Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, Conservatives, Religious, Atheist, Gay, Straight.
All of these words I have heard spoken as though the word itself was the insult. Calling someone a liberal or conservative with the same fervor and distaste that you would call someone an asshole or son of a bitch.
In my class I'm supposed to teach my students about logical fallacies. About Ad Hominem (attacking the person making the argument instead of analyzing the argument) and the Straw Man Fallacy (simplifying a point of view so much that it becomes easily distorted, a shell of itself, easy to disagree with or dislike). I find myself a little sickened that I have so many real life examples to point them to for understanding. And how can I explain to them that such fallacies are wrong, dishonest, not good, when they are now accustomed to them in their culture, when they can say, "but that's how it is done."
These fallacies only breed hate and misunderstanding.
And We fall for them every time.
Worst of all, we then hang on to them. Believe them to be true. And in turn, begin hating others just for associating themselves with said group.
Has this always happened? Sure. But today it seems to be a standard, a near epidemic.
Certainly people are not perfect and many lessons go ignored. I know this. I'm also sure Shakespeare isn't the only one to try and warn us against short sighted hate specifically.
However, it is rare you see a lesson become so incredibly famous just so it could be so incredibly ignored.
This is a simple matter that is overlooked by many, in fact, most. What does one usually recall about arguably the most famous play (at least in Western Culture) ever?
The "star-crossed lovers." They remember how tragic it is that these two healthy, young lovers are kept apart by death, that (according to most modern interpretations) only moments after Romeo ends his own life that Juliet arises alive, well, in jubilation, thinking she will see her "prince" in an equal state.
Maybe they blame bad timing or poor communication, or don't bother to think at all and instead lament just how unfair the whole matter is without bothering to fully recall why. They may call it unfair or shake their head at the families' "silliness" that lead to such destruction. They seem to understand the cause of the tragedy and yet, it seems to escape them at the same time. Somehow, in the end, they think the play is about love. They remember it as a love story.
Yet, it's not like Shakespeare tries to hide the real subject matter. The point is made fairly bloody obvious in both the opening and closing of the play and in Mercutio's final words, "A plague o' both your houses!/They have made worms' meat of me" (3.1.1612-13).
What we are supposed to learn about is not love but hate. Hate destroys their love. Hate is what kills them both and kills Mercutio and, of course, Tybalt. It is the feud of the houses that creates the danger and tears apart any chance at happiness. Most importantly, it is the hate of the their PARENTS and ancestors that tears them apart. The damned mindset passed down like a poisonous heirloom.
We remember Romeo and Juliet because they tried to remove themselves from the will, so to speak. We cite them as great and wondrous lovers, and while that may be true, that they could (unknowingly albeit) find love amongst the crowd of haters (no colloquial pun intended), we focus too much on their connection, and occasionally too much on their own personal tragedy, and not on the lesson we are supposed to learn from it all.
If anything, teens seem to take away from the whole affair that nothing should keep two people who love each other apart, sometimes falsely assuming that their spurs of hormonal obsession are equivalent to the type of love you die for (and since Romeo and Juliet are in the same age group, perhaps here they are right -- and both they and the characters are wrong). But that is not the point.
It's a warning. We're not supposed to hate each other for being different or just because our families hate each other. We're not supposed to contribute to the divide already created by our disagreements.
What we should be doing is seeing what we have in common and creating bridges, working together to overcome our differences, compromising, and/or turning the other damned cheek.
Shakespeare likely chose two head-over-heels, adorable, passionate lovers because he knew everyone would care about them. Then, to make his point, he murdered them. They were a plot device. He was trying to force us to feel the pain of our hate, by taking away something we loved, but he made them too lovable. They were too successful. They were too much a thing for us to like. He succeeded in making us feel bad that they are gone, but we feel so bad that - just like people in real tragedies - we are unable to look past the bad feelings and confusion and get the point.
At best we overlook the lesson, simply citing it as unfair, and at worst, we transfer our hate onto the families themselves, blaming them, hating these fictional beings.
If the the references to Romeo and Juliet in general, and their title as one of the world's greatest loves isn't enough to prove this misinterpretation, then just take a look at our world today.
Think about. The divide between those who are different is both colliding and deepening. The closer we get, the more open we are about our differences, the more others begin to accept each other, the more the ones who can't open up and accept hate us, and we, in turn, in true human, hypocritical nature, hate them back.
Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, Conservatives, Religious, Atheist, Gay, Straight.
All of these words I have heard spoken as though the word itself was the insult. Calling someone a liberal or conservative with the same fervor and distaste that you would call someone an asshole or son of a bitch.
In my class I'm supposed to teach my students about logical fallacies. About Ad Hominem (attacking the person making the argument instead of analyzing the argument) and the Straw Man Fallacy (simplifying a point of view so much that it becomes easily distorted, a shell of itself, easy to disagree with or dislike). I find myself a little sickened that I have so many real life examples to point them to for understanding. And how can I explain to them that such fallacies are wrong, dishonest, not good, when they are now accustomed to them in their culture, when they can say, "but that's how it is done."
These fallacies only breed hate and misunderstanding.
And We fall for them every time.
Worst of all, we then hang on to them. Believe them to be true. And in turn, begin hating others just for associating themselves with said group.
Has this always happened? Sure. But today it seems to be a standard, a near epidemic.
Certainly people are not perfect and many lessons go ignored. I know this. I'm also sure Shakespeare isn't the only one to try and warn us against short sighted hate specifically.
However, it is rare you see a lesson become so incredibly famous just so it could be so incredibly ignored.
Comments
Post a Comment