#stupidlamb-s

[earlyrager]

Time passes. Even when it seems impossible. Even when each tick of the second hand aches like the pulse of blood behind a bruise. It passes unevenly, in strange lurches and dragging lulls, but pass it does. Even for me.

[noshitshakespeare]

I was wondering, what do you make of the golden statues that Capulet and Montague promise to build at the end of the play? Looking at the way Romeo is repulsed by gold in his conversation with the Apothecary, and the way the lovers suggest that true wealth comes from love, how do you think they would feel if they knew they would become statues "in pure gold"?

I think you’ve made a case of your own right there! It’s hard to talk about what the characters would have felt, as such, because they’re dead and fictional. But there’s certainly a strong argument to be made for the idea that the monuments they receive after their deaths are not representative of Romeo and Juliet’s relationship, and are essentially unfitting for the individuals they are designed to commemorate. 

Your attention to detail is great, because that kind of close reading can say a lot about the families’ attitude at the end of the play. Capulet starts with a gesture of goodwill and reconciliation:

O brother Montague, give me thy hand.This is my daughter’s jointure, for no moreCan I demand.  (5.3.296-98)

Which is pretty powerful, because he accepts the marriage between the two and says that his daughter’s dowry, or wedding gift, will be their friendship. But there is some commercial imagery going on, with ‘jointure’, and ‘demand’ being the central terms. The statues come after that, perhaps as a response to the financial metaphors, and starts with Montague:

But I can give thee more,For I will raise her statue in pure gold,That whiles Verona by that name is known,There shall no figure at such rate be setAs that of true and faithful Juliet. (5.3.298-302)

The feeling behind it isn't exactly impure, but there is a touch of one-upmanship about Montague’s line in the idea that he can ‘give… more’ than friendship (the use of ‘raise’ seems quite significant too). He seems to measures things in terms of wealth, as though Juliet’s value can be measured by gold, and as if esteem is about ‘rate’, and other measurable things. It rather corresponds to Romeo’s initial way of thinking:  

I am no pilot, yet wert thou as farAs that vast shore washed with the farthest sea,I should adventure for such merchandise. (2.2.82-84)

Which is directly contrasted with Juliet’s dismissal of mercantile valuation:

My bounty is as boundless as the sea,My love as deep; the more I give to thee,The more I have, for both are infinite. (2.2.133-135)

As you say, the final lines of the play jar with the way that the lovers understood themselves. Capulet isn’t immune to Montague’s way of thinking and responds immediately along the same lines: ‘As rich shall Romeo’s by his lady’s lie, / Poor sacrifices of our enmity’ (5.3.303-4). More competition and maybe even some showing off of wealth. The more generous reading, though, is that the statues give shape to their reconciliation and acts as a symbol of their promise of brotherhood. It might show Capulet and Montague’s emphasis on the visual and the material, but it’s a step in the right direction.

What I’m trying to say is that while Capulet and Montague have accepted the fact that their enmity caused the deaths of their children, their way of thought isn’t changed that easily. Shakespeare’s depiction of human beings is always complex and multifaceted. He shows that people don’t change so easily or entirely, and that their way of thinking is harder to change than what they think. Even genuine grief doesn’t exclude other feelings such as competition and pride. In some ways, it’s tragic because the ability to see past differences achieved by the lovers doesn’t survive their deaths: there’s reconciliation, but it’s not full understanding. Still, changes do happen in small steps, and what happens at the end, gold statues and all, is better than no remorse at all. 

[noshitshakespeare]

Have you read "Juliet's Taming of Romeo" by Carolyn E. Brown? If so, what do you think about it?

I think it’s a good close reading of the text. There are some small things I slightly disagree with, especially the general cursory treatment of Romeo because the concentration is on Juliet. Sometimes when emphasising feminine strength, there's a tendency for feminist critics to treat male characters a little simplistically, even though representing the power of the male characters would more effectively underscore just how strong the female characters are. I’m not sure, for instance, that I agree with her constant assertion that Romeo is interested only in sexually gorging on Juliet. But that’s normal. Critics are trained to read other’s works critically, so some small disagreements signify that I’m generally convinced by the analysis of the extended falconry metaphor. 

It’s also true that women training men is a staple of many of Shakespeare’s comedies, most notably As You Like It. But I do think that the way Brown writes about it in her essay she has a tendency to make Juliet sound like a criminal mastermind. It verges on sinister. I think it could be seen as a lot more playful than consciously power-grabbing. It’s like the way she writes about the line ‘You kiss by th’ book’, which apparently shows Juliet’s dissatisfaction at Romeo’s ‘lack of proficiency in the art of kissing in which she seems to have some experience’, and rather robs it of any of the playfulness I see in it.  

Overall it’s an excellent article that raises many interesting points about the text; very valuable. But I do think there’s a way of talking about the lovers in a way that registers some of the more sinister undertones without completely destroying the exploratory sweetness that’s there. 

[noshitshakespeare]

I had the chance to watch Daniel Kramer's Romeo and Juliet las week and thought the whole production was against the text (the ending was nonsense!). So I was wondering, in your opinion, to what extent can we mangle Shakespeare's plays in productions and still consider them to be Shakespeare's creation?

I feel your frustration. Even though it’s important to challenge assumptions and innovate in theatre, it can be annoying when a performance forces an interpretation or does something unusual just to be either new (for the sake of new) or edgy.  

But this is a very difficult question. It’s part of a really contentious topic concerning what makes Shakespeare Shakespeare.

You’d think it would be simple, like ‘what Shakespeare wrote is what Shakespeare is’, but the definition of ‘what Shakespeare wrote’ is pretty shaky. We can make educated guesses, but lacking his original manuscripts, we don’t know how much of it is his own wording, or even his own spelling. It could have been edited by the acting troupe or by somebody else; the prompt copy scribe or the publishers might have changed things, deliberately or accidentally. I know most people would say that even then we have relatively authoritative texts, and it’s obvious when something is really diverging from anything the playwright wrote. That’s true too.

In the performance history of Shakespeare’s works, there’s a longer tradition of performing bastardised and ‘improved’ versions than there is of trying to keep to the text as closely as possible. You would no doubt know that Garrick’s additions to Romeo and Juliet (based on Otway) were used for a good century (and that even recently Baz Luhrmann decided to use an element of it). This doesn’t necessarily make changing the plays okay exactly, but it does set a precedent.

Even recently, most film versions and many stage versions of the plays are cut (often very heavily, as in the case of the Lawrence Olivier Henry V), and some productions even surreptitiously include new lines (like that RSC Hamlet that added a line to Claudius’ part just so they could get Patrick Stewart to say the word ‘enterprise’). The cutting and the editing can change the meaning of a play considerably, and most of these are still considered to be versions of Shakespeare. In more silly instances there are things like Shit-Faced Shakespeare and a lot of fringe performances that capitalise on Shakespeare; they are all ‘Shakespeare’ in some sense. The question is, where do you stop? Do you set a really narrow definition and look down on anything looser at the risk of missing out on some fascinating and truly creative artistic innovations, or do you go for a free-for-all even if it means a lot of questionable content is going to get through?

When you say ‘mangle’, you imply that any change is going to be a change for the worse, but that isn’t necessarily true. It may not be an improvement, but it might not ruin the plays either. I think the point might not be what changes we make, but whether those changes make the meaning of the text come through. So, if a production makes changes, but the changes fit with the theme and bring out something significant about the text, it could be Shakespeare even if it doesn’t follow Shakespeare’s words exactly. Because if we start insisting too strongly that Shakespeare isn’t Shakespeare without his words, then you end up classing all translations as ‘not-Shakespeare’ too. After all, however wonderfully a translator may translate a work, it’s never going to contain all of the nuances Shakespeare put in there. By extension, many much looser adaptations of Shakespeare’s plays, like the Bollywood Shakespeare films or Kurosawa’s Japanese films based on Shakespeare are considered by many to be ‘Shakespeare’ when they don’t even keep the script.

It’s quite tempting to say that something ‘isn't Shakespeare’ when you don’t agree with an interpretation, and one can always come up with numerous textual reasons why a production might be considered deficient. But in the end, it’s not up to anyone to tell others what they can and can’t do, and often the best way is to let a production fail, and work out that it did badly for itself. Even a ‘bad’ production might even bring out something important along the way. Just walk out of the performance if you don’t enjoy it; nobody’s keeping you there, and just like in Shakespeare’s day, it’s up to the troupe to keep you entertained. 

Basically, even at the risk of including every dud production and every bastardization of Shakespeare in the definition, I do think it worthwhile to keep an open mind about what classes as Shakespeare, because if you narrow the meaning too much, you might also end up missing something fantastic.

[jenniful]

I'd never given much though to how I would die. But dying in place of someone I love, seems like a good way to go. I can't bring myself to regret the decisions that brought me face to face with death. They also brought me to Edward.

[ronandreams]

tagged by @tomhallond, thank you! :) RULES: WRITE THE FIRST TEN SONGS THAT COME UP ON SHUFFLE (NO SKIPPING) AND QUOTE YOUR FAVORITE LYRIC FROM EACH SONG, THEN TAG 10 PEOPLE  1. The Other Side - Jason Derulo Tonight we’ll just get drunk Disturb the peace Let your love crash into me And then you bite your lip Whisper and say, “We’re going all the way.” 2. Crazy - Shawn Mendes All of this is getting really old I'm having trouble sleeping on my own Feeling like a house but not a home I want you to know 3. Til It Happens To You - Lady Gaga Til your world burns and crashes Til you're at the end, the end of your rope Til you're standing in my shoes I don't wanna hear a thing from you 4. Haunting - Halsey We walk as tall as the skyline And we have roots like the trees But then your eyes start to wander 'Cause they weren't looking at me You weren't looking for me 5. The Love Song - Marilyn Manson I've got a crush on a pretty pistol should I tell her that I feel this way? Father told us to be faithful I've got a crush on a pretty pistol  should I tell her that I feel this way I've got love songs in my head that are killing us away 6. Thistle & Weeds - Mumford & Sons I begged you to hear me, there's more than flesh and bones Let the dead bury the dead, they will come out in droves But take the spade from my hands and fill in the holes you've made 7. Ode To Sleep - Twenty One Pilots On the eve of a day that's forgotten and fake And the trees they await and clouds anticipate The start of a day when we put on our face A mask that portrays that we don't need grace On the eve of a day that is bigger than us But we open our eyes 'cause we're told that we must 8. Misery - Maroon 5 Your salty skin and how It mixes in with mine The way it feels to be Completely intertwined 9. Stay - Kygo, Maty Noyes You wanna leave her, don't wanna hurt nobody I don't believe a single word you say or that you're sorry Why can't I say no to the look on your face? I just stay 10. Arms - Christina Perri The world is coming down on me and I can't find a reason to be loved I never wanna leave you but I can't make you bleed if I'm alone I tag: @stupidlamb-s, @ravenclawssong, @templexclaire, @myownbizarreworld, @magnusbane-daily, @liemdunbars, @ravensjordan, @daisridlcy.

[kellythepitiablefangirl]

I'm just... going to keep redrawing iconic graphic novel moments as Edythe and Beau.

[kellythepitiablefangirl]

“I feel like I’ve been waiting my whole life to find a female character like her” :’) @stupidlamb-s, hell yes. she’s just so complex and strong and brilliant.