Originally Posted By: HowlerKarma

The other perspective is that of Shakespeare's audiences. That is, the perspective of the average European of ca. 1600 London. This would include the philosophy of marraige as a contract and property arrangement, not a matter of the heart, and one which was indubitably best arranged by one's elders.

In this instance, she squarely blames the two protagonists for their own fate. Basically, all would have been well if not for their "foolishness and headstrong immaturity."

Juliet, at least is a creature of action; of course this doesn't turn out very well, and she really comes off as something of an ungrateful spoiled brat whose parents may have encouraged this by overindulging their only child...

Romeo, she characterizes as "inherently weak; his immaturity allows him to be pulled into a swirling vortex of deceit and blood" by the conniving and equally immature Juliet. After all, he's a pretty fickle guy when you get right down to it-- he goes to the party in the first place because he's looking for ONE girl that he's pining for, and winds up with one who is ripe for ANY boy that her parents don't approve of...


Oh man, I must be in the wrong century because that's what I'v always thought. blush I've never been able to stand Romeo and Juliet and instead of finding the play romantic I always get annoyed by the characters and how flighty their choices are. I do like his comedies but I've just never been able to enjoy Romeo and Juliet...