I'm actually somewhat inclined to agree (though not quite so vehemently).
I also don't like Wuthering Heights, and people think that's terribly romantic. I'd say, if passion is about being emotionally and physically abusive, you can keep it... For some reason a lot of people think it's wonderful that sexual passion can drive you to do stupid things. Don't get me wrong, I think passion can be great, but not when it drives people to be destructive.
is it an Sx/So or So/Sx thing? I think we Sp doms just don't get it. we're much more able to be like "um....violence? self sacrifice? abuse? I'm outta here"
Could be. I would be inclined to think Sx-first, but that might be a stereotype...
I think self-sacrifice is good, actually...I think it's a myth that Sp-firsts are totally not into that. But not self-sacrifice to an insane degree (though I do believe that in some cases at least self-sacrifice for the greater good is the right thing to do.)
However, equating abuse and manipulation and general psycho-ness with "passion" kind of sucks, IMHO. I'm probably talking more about Wuthering Heights than Romeo and Juliet, though. I think R and J were mainly a pair of dumb hormonal kids who would eventually have discovered they had little in common and didn't like each other that much!
I do like romance, but backed up with a good basis of realism.
I'm probably talking more about Wuthering Heights than Romeo and Juliet, though. I think R and J were mainly a pair of dumb hormonal kids who would eventually have discovered they had little in common and didn't like each other that much!
This has a degree of truth. It all depends on your interpretation of the play. Many think it was Shakespeare's intention to highlight what can happen to young lovers who run away with passion, and the irresponsibility of a number of characters who should have acted as mentors and given more guidance. After all, R+J is a Tragedy, not Romance. The result of the young passionate love is disastrous.
As for Wuthering Heights, to me that appeals much more as a Romance. Whenever I think of WH I think of this line: "He's more myself than I am. Whatever our souls are made of, his and mine are the same." The two lovers share a bond that is extraordinary... obsessive and almost violent... Aspects of their love is disturbing, but to me it stands out as the example of love at its absolute extreme in literature. The love between them both almost literally has the power to kill them both.. they can't bare to be together in life, and yet they can't bare to be apart. It's like their love reaches beyond life and the grave.
i think one way in which people can't relate to Catherine and Heathcliff as lovers is because their relationship is strangely asexual. It exceeds conventional romantic love and even sexual expression. While it's all violent and difficult, it's still intensely enduring. Very much extreme, true and yet totally intoxicating and debilitating love.
Of course these are all my opinions on the play and book...
I found Romeo and Juliet immensely entertaining, actually. I believed that Shakespeare's intent was to show the dangers of two young, stupid people running away with their passions. The hilarious thing was, my freshman English teacher took the whole thing completely seriously. She truly believed that it was romantic. So did the rest of the class, although many laughs were to be had when we watched the film versions, both the 1968 and that modern one with Leonardo Dicaprio or whoever it was.
So the problem, I suppose, is not the story itself, but the way certain people choose to interpret it. But then, it is hard to like a play where everyone is boneheaded. I remember loathing Julius Caesar for precisely that reason: every single character was insufferable.
It's a statement about restrictive societies and feuding, not about stupid young people, or the play wouldn't have lasted this many centuries.
I think Shakespeare's intent was to show the stupidity of a closed-minded society like Qlip said...that these young people were basically a product of the environment...that the adults around them didn't exactly drive them to it, but like, yeah...kind of. It's a statement about restrictive societies and feuding, not about stupid young people, or the play wouldn't have lasted this many centuries.
Oh I don't disagree that the stupidity of a close-minded society was the overarching theme of the piece. But I think the tendency of hot-headedness and quick judgement was a point that Shakespeare criticized. And I felt obliged to point it out because I'm still irritated that my English teacher never did. I'm insufferable that way.