Why is Romeo and Juliette a classic?

I think we all had to read this in English class around 14. It's a tale of kids who know each other for a short time. They decide they are 100% in love and it's forever. When mom and dad say no cause they got their own beef going on the kids kill themselves. Aren't they around 14 themselves? Which in those times was closer to an adult since you die at 40 I guess.

This seems like a parents worst nightmare. Like they hope their teen does not swallow poison over the guy they know for 2 weeks. Yet to high school kids going though that we say "yes this the best kind of love!" I wonder if any kids were inspired to commit suicide over the play.

I see the deeper meaning in the writing but still it's odd to me.

 

The relationship between Romeo and Juliet wasn’t true love but Infatuation. Best summed up by Rod Stewart in his 1984 hit song....

 

i've made a couple of threads on this topic here and there on different forums. i see it as shakespeare parodying eros love, unlike agape. he's commenting on human nature, flaws, vanity, and society's faults in general. hence,due to all of these faults, it ultimately leads to tragedy.

think about how fast romeo forgets about rosaline and switches to juliet at first sight. like an omen, it kinda sets the tone for the events to come. not much can be expected from romeo after that.

 

Hi Unfocus, just a bit of truth, and I would try to write it unoffensively, but then I wouldn't comment. Romeo and
Juliet isn't a "parody" It's a romantic comedy, one of Shakespeare's earlier plays after writing mainly sonnets. You see the deeper meaning--what is that I wonder?

The solution to finding something other than odd, would be to read a few of his plays and a commentary or two, as opposed to one reading in a class when you were 14. Your critique is breezy, relaxed because you simply have no knowledge to base you opinions on. I'm 70, lived was in Haight many times, and a lot of those hippies would talk about humanistic arts with the same blankly flippant attitude. Not all though, there was a sense of history and the humanities there also. Nothing expectional or especially mean in your ignorance. He is, in all fairness, considered the best writer in the history of English writing though man. If you've no time to inform yourself at al, at least cut him loose from your commentary.



QUOTE="unfocusedanakin, post: 8412301, member: 104865"]I think we all had to read this in English class around 14. It's a tale of kids who know each other for a short time. They decide they are 100% in love and it's forever. When mom and dad say no cause they got their own beef going on the kids kill themselves. Aren't they around 14 themselves? Which in those times was closer to an adult since you die at 40 I guess.

This seems like a parents worst nightmare. Like they hope their teen does not swallow poison over the guy they know for 2 weeks. Yet to high school kids going though that we say "yes this the best kind of love!" I wonder if any kids were inspired to commit suicide over the play.

I see the deeper meaning in the writing but still it's odd to me.[/QUOTE]

 

Ugh, i had an english teacher in high school that was a total Shakespear nut hugger, totally put me off him.

He was just writing the 16th century versions of Days of our lives.

And he died at 52 in secret, which most likely means he died if Syphillis

 

I'm sure he was glad to get you off of him for any reason. You stick with Days of Our Lives, and googling, things your understand Koko.

 

never cared for it. I cant remember it much in school at all. I dont know the whole story, I guess you stated it, but ill forget it.. not memory space worthy. other than the dire straits song..

 

For a large part because its written in 16th century England by Shakespeare.

 

I like Dire Straits, saw them at the Boarding House in SF. Knopfler said Jesus taught him to play open tuned guitar, sometimes called "Slack". Perhaps you'll remember something later when you're memory becomes worthy of something more than space.

 

The tragedy of love unfulfilled no matter the age. The sadness of what people fighting does to innocent people. Like the kids did not start the feud they are born into it. The play to me is just human mistakes.

 

Good Enough. That's as good a two-line critique as I've heard. Given a great writer's talent, insights into the situations you list, a story could be made. It was in fact, a story about the strength and fragility of love, and no love burns so hot as the hormone charged relationship between a 13-year-old girl and a 17-year old guy--no accident Shakespeare put them at 13 and 17--but even that angst ridden bond can be smothered by chance, mistakes and human meanness. It is about mistakes, chance,

 

huck finn and the bible was literature.

 

Also keep in mind if you don't like Shakespeare's style you probably won't *understand* his works. It'll be similar to saying "I listened to Tupac, but I don't understand why he's so elevated by many in today's society" when you really hate hip hop and never liked any of it at all. Or hating the horror genre and not understanding Guillermo del Toro. It's largely a matter of taste in style.

 

Or.....maybe Shakespeare simply sucks

 

De gustibus non est disputandum

 

Indeed they are literature. Not the new Testament, but the old, and the old mainly because it's an invaluable historical document. Huck Finn is also offered as a first example of a modern "novel", along with others like "Moby Dick" and two of Dafoe's books, "Robinson Crusoe" and "A Journal of the Plague Year."
So, that's all, old books, which would be every "good" book that's been written, can be worth reading.

Now, to invite a real ass whippin' I guess, my favorite old book is the "Epic of Gilgamesh" written around 2100 BC in Summeria/Babylon. One of Earth's oldest tales, the hero, Gilgamesh, goes out hunting with a pal. His pal accidentally gets killed. Gilgamesh is half god, and he's never seen anyone die before. The rest of the story follows him as he tries to find a way to get out of being eventually dead. Same question still pops up. Old stories often offer modern dilemmas, from a way different perspective. I'm out.

 

love concors gangster rivalries.

no idea how or why anything gets defined as classic, other then being a prototype for a genre, which i'm almost postivie it isn't. i could be mistaken though.

not sure even why i'm saying anything, clicked on this out of curiosity what to see what others thought.

 

Generally, a work of art is a classic if:

It's stood the test of time, still considered something special many years after it was made
People who pay attention to the piece of art and are familiar with movies, sculpting, books, etc., say it is.
It's considered one of the best works of all the creations of a good or great artist
It's still being studied, looked at, listened to today, and probably tomorrow.

That's most of it, more or less. Though I recently read an advert for a film that was being billed "An Instant American Classic."

 

This.