Writer's Block Daily

:/

Maybe I should just submit...

edited 21st May '13 4:33:04 AM by ohsointocats

The thing is an "emotionally satisfying and optimistic ending" includes practically every work ever written, including most tragedies. As long as a work re-affirms the value of unconditional love, I would say it's a romance.

Now, does the work reaffirm true love, or does it say that Italians/teenagers are dumb as fuck?

There's a difference?

Yes. Yes there is.

I think that most people who really read Romeo & Juliet and know anything about the whole "being in love" thing would recognise that the play is not about the power of true love. If anything, it is about how the mistakes that parents make reflect upon their children.

Also, do not conflate "emotionally satisfying" with "optimistic." As a fan of writers like Ducasse, Kafka, Topor and Ligotti, I can safely say that what emotionally fulfils as an ending to a long-form narrative need not be positive or life-affirming by any stretch of the imagination. A strong ending can, and in some cases should, be devastating. Such is the nature of most (but far from all) tragedies.

I always thought the moral of Romeo and Juliet was "teenagers in love are stupid".

As for "emotionally satisfying" vs "optimistic"... see the endings of Spec Ops: The Line.

edited 21st May '13 9:35:56 PM by TeraChimera

I feel like all the joy in my life has been forcibly sucked out of me.

edited 22nd May '13 2:22:15 AM by ohsointocats

Romeo and Juliet? Not about the value of true love? Seriously?

When family politics takes the life of her lover, Juliet kills herself rather than live without Romeo. I cant think of a stronger way to illustrate the value of something than that.

Showing the suffering caused by losing something of tremendous value to someone is the single most effective way of demonstrating the value of that thing.

And no, I am not conflating "optimistic" and "emotionally satisfying", but if the story is not optimistic in some sense, I don't see why you would label that work as a romance. R & J is optimistic in the sense that the two sets of parents do, in fact, learn their lesson, and begin working to reconcile their differences. Therefore- a tragic romance, not just a tragedy.

How can you call it true love if they agree to get married after a single night of knowing each other?

Besides, family politics didn't kill Romeo. He committed suicide because he though Juliet was dead after a somewhat poorly thought-out plan went awry.

The whole point of Romeo and Juliet is that teenagers are stupid.

@Tera: By traditional literary convention, True Love happens at first sight. Technically, you are right about Romeo, but that only reinforces my point: he couldn't live without Julia either.

Will you people quit with the "teenagers are stupid" schtick? Love is stupid, in the sense that there is nothing rational or logical about it. The age of the main characters is irrelevant.

Well, it's not necessarily teenagers are stupid. It's more that foreigners are stupid. I mean Hamlet was in his 30s and everyone died in that one, too!

I see your Hamlet and raise you a Great Gatsby- which is an excellent example of a tragic love story with is not a romance, because the ending isn't optimistic in any way. The characters are, however, extremely stupid.

edited 22nd May '13 7:57:29 AM by demarquis

I believe this equation has a more general solution.

In my opinion, "true love at first sight" is a fucking stupid convention, and just because Shakespeare uses it doesn't mean it gets a free pass.

Why is it all right for people to see each other and instantly know that they're "the one"? Why are they allowed to skip over a process that can take months in real life? Brevity? Include a montage and/or imply that time passes, and I'll be fine. It's almost insulting the way they treat something so world-changing as happening so quickly. "Hi, I'm Romeo." "Hi, I'm Juliet." LOVE! Seriously? To quote Doug Walker, "Minute rice takes longer than that." Not to mention that that's basing your love entirely on their appearance, which is incredibly shallow.

I always thought that Romeo and Juliet falling in "love" at first sight was more indicative of young love and teenage lust than any actual true love. And if true lovers would kill each other rather than live without the other, does that mean that widows or widowers didn't really love their spouses? Their killing each other so quickly over someone they've know for only a few days isn't true love, it's teenage attraction and hormones.

edited 22nd May '13 8:07:21 AM by TeraChimera

Because fiction. If people want a real romantic relationship they would close the book and go meet someone.

^ I don't know about that one given various.......effects seen in the Otaku community.

Romeo and Juliet was Shakespeare parodying the whole "passionate love at first sight" genre. Unfortunately, most people miss that.

Indications of this include Romeo's fickleness (people tend to forget he was mooning over a different lady just hours before he met Juliet) and the fact that he's constantly spouting off Petrarchan conceits. Shakespeare, going by his other writing, hated Petrarchan conceits, finding them overblown and silly (see, for instance, "My Mistress' Eyes").

Ayup.

Romeo and Juliet isn't a tragedy. It's a farce. It all hinges on a single misunderstanding that leads into horrible consequences. Because teenagers are stupid.

I find this entire debate over what Romeo and Juliet is supposed to be amusing.

While it's without the doubt that it was presented as a tragedy, in the Shakespearean sense, it's up in the air what Shakespeare's intentions were. There's definitely comedy (see the first two acts), but does it surpass the tragedy label?

My thought is that Shakespeare was playing with the formula in a similar way School Days was. Started as a comedy, and then it turns into a tragedy because of the flaws and missteps involved. It does end on an optimistic note, but it's bitter.

edited 22nd May '13 2:42:56 PM by chihuahua0

When family politics takes the life of her lover, Juliet kills herself rather than live without Romeo. I cant think of a stronger way to illustrate the value of something than that. '

^ That is in no way shape or form true love. That is a perfect illustration of desperation and the state of being pathetic not love.

That's like saying, "If people want to drive in a real race, they would stop playing Forza Motorsport or Gran Turismo and join one." Yeah, technically that's possible, but by picking up a work of fiction that simulates it realistically, it's a lot harder to screw up and doesn't take a really long time to come to fruition. So why not?

That also implies people are satisfied by shallowness.

You also don't seem to have entirely followed it. The question being discussed is whether it's playing the concept of "true love" straight or satirizing it - whether that satire is supposed to be funny or sad (or both) is really besides the point, and certainly isn't what's being debated.

edited 22nd May '13 3:22:08 PM by nrjxll