Bill Kerwin's Reviews > Romeo and Juliet

Mercutio's mocking of Romeo in the second act when he and Benvolio are looking for him and right before he goes to Juliet is quite easily one of the best parts.
"Cry but “Ay me,” pronounce but “love” and “dove.”
Speak to my gossip Venus one fair word,
One nickname for her purblind son and heir,
Young Abraham Cupid," and later on when he speaks of the "spirit" and her laying it down.
His saying all of this and just preceding the balcony scene somewhat feels somewhat like a premonition, but also one of many of course.

Real things are precisely those whose properties will never be exhausted by any description we can make of them. We can have comprehensive knowledge only of things that we have made up. (Roy Bhaskar)

I have thought a lot lately about this quote from a difficult writer. Is it in any way refuted by the way we can always, over and over again, read Shakespeare in new ways?

Domhnall wrote: "Real things are precisely those whose properties will never be exhausted by any description we can make of them. We can have comprehensive knowledge only of things that we have made up. (Roy Bhaska..."

I have only a trivial knowledge of Bhaskar, but it seems to me that a man who first called his realism "transcendental," for whom the the most important thing was the "depth" of the real, and held along with Marx that dialectical connections were ontologically real in themselves, might also be led to agree that Shakespeare himself was a "real thing."

I'm more a literary than a philosophical man myself, and this quote made me think of Coleridge's distinction between "Fancy" and "Imagination."

"Fancy" is the classic process by which unicorns and centaurs are created. Stick a horn on a horse's head, or the upper torso of a human on the bottom part of a horse, and--voila!--you have a production of the human "fancy." No production of the human fancy can ever be real. It may walk and talk, like an automaton, but it will always be lacking in depth.

"Imagination" is something else. It is human participation in the original "I AM," the creation of reality. It seeks what is ideal, what is unifying, but above all it is alive with that reality, and what it creates is alive as well.

I would argue--with Coleridge--that what is real extends from the original creation to the products of the human imagination--whether consciously or unconsciously--that participate actively within it, that what humans create, when it is both deep and various, both surprising and surprisingly harmonious, is as real as anything in the world.

Wonder Woman and James Bond are not real. Anna Karenina and Hamlet are real, and neither their characters or their existential conditions will every be completely comprehended, or their "properties" completely exhausted.

Thanks Bill, I enjoyed your response and I have a great affection for Coleridge, which I owe to a two volume account by Richard Holmes. My first Goodreads review was about realism in The New Journalism. As for Bhasker, I am struggling to make myself write out a proper description of what I take from his writing, based on two books I have read. He fully earned his award for bad writing.

Following on from you final paragraph, and at the risk of offending (which is not my intent) I have formed a rather curious opinion in lengthy debates about Christianity and Islam. This is that the New Testament account of Jesus leaves me (at any rate) with a very restricted, two dimensional, cardboard cutout description of someone who cannot be real because we only encounter such a restricted selection from the life. Mohammed, by contrast, is a fully historical figure, of whom we have a considerable quantity of information, some of which is not flattering, some of which is certainly humorous, not excluding mockery of him and some of his divine revelations by his wives. This scandalises many Christians (judging by their frothing on the internet) but does produce a three dimensional, quite accessible and certainly very real person. Please don't think this comment is about religious faith in any way - it's not. It is about the historical picture I obtain in reading about both religious figures.

Domhnall wrote: "Thanks Bill, I enjoyed your response and I have a great affection for Coleridge . . . The New Testament account of Jesus leaves me (at any rate) with a very restricted, two dimensional, cardboard cutout description of someone who cannot be real because we only encounter such a restricted selection from the life. Mohammed, by contrast, is a fully historical figure . . . "

First of all, I hope you enjoyed the Coleridge primer, which I see now you obviously didn't need. I, however, did enjoy writing it. It reminded me of a few important things, so I guess it wasn't a total loss.

On Jesus and the Prophet. Funny. My reaction is just the opposite. But then I'm trying to get my sense of them through the sacred texts. The pithy sayings and often unsettling parables of Jesus, both filled with rural metaphors and homely settings, plus a few of his most interesting encounters (the rich young man, the woman with a discharge, and others) give me a sense of the man--his sense of humor, his zen master tricks--that the obvious rhetorical purposes of the gospel genre cannot quite kill. On the other hand, I can see nothing of the man Mohammed in the little I have read of the great book with which the Divine blessed him. I've heard a lot of the stories too, but, except for the general sense that he was passionate, impulsive, with a strong gift for acquiring powerful supporters, I have no real sense of the essential man.

My advice. Get a good translation of the Gospel of Mark (I favor Richmond Lattimore, for he tries to stick to the language of the time, using "slave" instead of "servant," for example) and read it all the way through quickly. It is the shortest gospel, probably the first, and contains more stuff that seems like realistic details and evidences of personality that were later cleaned up right out of existence. (For example: in Mark, Jesus becomes "angry" at the same things that "sadden" him in Matthew or Luke, and tries to cure a blind man, fails, and tries again. Matthew and Luke leave out the part about the failure.)

Overall, from Mark, I get the impression of a man of intelligence, energy and basic good humor, who is convinced some transformative event is coming, one in which he will play a unique role, and that he desperately wants his disciples to keep their mouths shut about his mission, for he fears notoriety may literally get him killed and prevent him from accomplishing his work. Miracles are essential to his work but he dreads them, knowing that every miracle brings him a little bit more fame and brings him closer to death.

Would I like to know if Jesus preferred dates to figs? Whether he found Judas self-righteous, the Boanerges brothers irritating, and Peter endearing? What was really going on between him and the Magdalene? Sure. But I don't think it is necessary for my overall sense of the man.

Interesting thoughts, Bill. I remember in my 9th grade English class my teacher would explain the first few pages as "the guards joking around, it's not really important and it would take a long time to explain the jokes." Re-reading it since I discovered Shakespeare chose to open his so-called romantic tragedy with a riff on rape and female genital mutilation, still managing to squeeze in some homosexual overtones, pun intended.

Romeo is such a dweeb, really a massive, massive tool. Juliet displays some intelligence but is in her womanhood a sucker for Romeo and thus incapable of escaping an essential stupidity (in Shakespeare's world). That the tragedy here is unnecessary, and wholly dependent not on some serious cosmic folly as in later tragedies, but the impossible puppy love of two dopes, makes me think R&J is a tragi-comedy in the modern sense of "comedy". (Ditto Titus Andronicus.)

Mercutio, with his "I am trapped in a world of idiots" attitude, is Shakespeare's mouthpiece. When Mercutio dies and the Friar becomes a bigger part of the plot, we think he has taken over in place of Mercutio as the voice of reason, until we learn of his frankly hare-brained scheme. Shakespeare would be shocked that English teachers now attempt to justify the Friar's make-you-dead-then-make-you-not-dead potion as anything other than absurd. It could pass in a Mel Brooks movie.

Acts IV and V, to me, read as a straight-up parody of the tragedies of Shakespeare's contemporaries. It saddens me no one stages them as such. Does anyone know if R&J has been played for laughs in the past?

Nick wrote: "Interesting thoughts, Bill. I remember in my 9th grade English class my teacher would explain the first few pages as "the guards joking around, it's not really important and it would take a long ti..."

Interesting approach to Romeo and Juliet--but I don't share it. Romeo and Juliet are not stupid, they are just passionate, thoughtless teenagers, and in a sensible world--where adults didn't fight pointlessly over nothing--they both would have grown up into fine young people. I think we watch Juliet do a lot of growing up before our eyes, as a matter of fact--after she realize her nurse is unreliable.

Friar Laurence is the guy I really hate--perhaps irrationally in my intensity. If he just had not been so sure he could end to whole feud by manipulating the situation, at least the two might have lived. He is too clever by half, but Shakespeare and his contemporaries were willing to believe in strange poisons and potions with special properties, and particularly when they were devised by an Italian!
I, however--although I must confess to being one of "those English teachers"--never uttered one good word for Friar Laurence.

Bill wrote: "Nick wrote: "Interesting thoughts, Bill. I remember in my 9th grade English class my teacher would explain the first few pages as "the guards joking around, it's not really important and it would t..."

Oh, I didn't mean to sound hostile toward English teachers, I love 'em and in a few months I'll begin studying to become one.

Friar Laurence was overconfident in his scheme, but it ultimately fell apart because the Italian postal service loses a lot of letters, and because he overestimated R&J's self-control. He had lived such an insular life among his herbs that he'd forgotten about best-laid plans. His deep shame and grief make me forgive the man. Capulet, though, I have no sympathy for. I'm sure I'm not alone in putting him at the top of my most-hated list for this play. Probably in the majority.

You didn't seem hostile. I just thought I should make a full disclosure. And good luck with your career. It is a fine profession, often hampered by bureaucracy.

Like a say, I'm probably too harsh on Laurence. It probably comes from 34 years of teaching in Catholic high schools. That really seems to have intensified my anti-clericalism.

Capulet is a big, self-important blowhard, but, like the nurse, I love him for his use of common language, so far from the stilted rhetoric of Laurence.

Oh, I forgot . . . I think your previous comment got it exactly right about the catastrophe of R&J: it is not inevitable, like in the other tragedies. That is why it is so painful to watch (hence, I believe, the desire to distance one through comedy), and not like the great catharses of Hamlet and Lear. In this way, it resembles Othello--although Othello involves more melodramatic evil. In both cases, thought, we watch are protagonists struggle helplessly, like insects in a sticky trap, not perish glorious like Macbeth, Hamlet and Lear.

Whether I'm misreading R&J by emphasizing its comedic elements or stage directors are taking it too seriously, I would think that in ironic culture, a deliberately campy, hammy take on the play would have been done by now. (Baz Luhrmann's adaptation, while self-aware, finds its irony in the juxtaposition of its modern elements with what it considers to be the tragic heart of the play, so it's not quite what I'm after.)

I don't mind Laurence's indulgent reveries. Reading his soliloquy about the Earth being both womb and tomb, we can see glimmers of the man who would eventually write some of the greatest downers in literature (sound and fury+to be or not to be). (We can also imagine how self-satisfied the insecure young playwright must have been upon discovering that womb and tomb rhyme.)

Good point about Othello; whereas R&J has no villain and so leaves the reader feeling squeamish and unclean, Othello has Iago, who while being the embodiment of evil also makes evil into something easily beatable, being a human that one can kill with weapons. (And yet, notably, Iago is only tortured and not killed; he is only given further grievance with the world.) It is only through the willful compliance of Roderigo and Emilia that he succeeded. He did not manipulate a pre-existing problem (though he tried to via Desdemona's father). Instead he fabricated one from whole cloth, specifically, a handkerchief.

All of this is only if you consider Iago a villain. A very interesting friend of mind has declared him to be the play's protagonist...

Nick wrote: "Whether I'm misreading R&J by emphasizing its comedic elements or stage directors are taking it too seriously, I would think that in ironic culture, a deliberately campy, hammy take on the play wou..."

Interesting to see Iago as protagonist. Like Richard III, Iago is a descendent of the Vice of the medieval plays, the stage manager and instigator of all active evil in the world of the play. Sort of a demonic version of the author!

Bill, I really admire individuals who can write reviews on Shakespeare's works. How can one possibly begin to think what this magnificent individual was referring to!

I always got the impression that he was secretly (well sometimes openly!) laughing at everyone.

Wonderful review, Bill! I absolutely love the lyricism of this play--almost enough to make me miss teaching freshmen! I agree that R&J are just desperate, passionate teenagers. Every action they take is a response to an impending action by someone else--usually Lord Capulet. Their suicides at the end, while foolish, are just tragically indicative of the teenage mindset. Suicide prevention is an ongoing concern in our high school. We rarely make it through the year without at least one.

Well, there you go! I guess the moral of that story is that if Romeo and Juliet had consulted Dr. Jaja, all their problems would have been solved!

Bill, I really appreciate all your reviews, but especially of Shakespeare, and the comments are always wonderfully illuminating as well. I never have made it through R&J; I really do need to give it another chance.

Amy (Other Amy) wrote: "Bill, I really appreciate all your reviews, but especially of Shakespeare, and the comments are always wonderfully illuminating as well. I never have made it through R&J; I really do need to give i..."

Glad your are enjoying the reviews. As you may have suspected, he is my greatest literary love.

Bill wrote: "Glad your are enjoying the reviews. As you may have suspected, he his my greatest literary love. "

It shows, and that is a wonderful thing. I got the first taste of love for him in college, but I didn't devote the proper time to my reading life after I graduated, let the workaday world distract me. I'm using GR to get back on track. I discovered the Arden editions just this past month, and I'm planning on a reread/read of all of Shakespeare over the next couple of years with that edition. I'm also finding several audio editions of the plays with actors whose performances I remember fondly, so I'm thinking of a kind of immersion reading. Anyway, I also look forward to having your reviews to help me think through the plays. It's nice to have a reading from someone who has thought on Shakespeare with focus to help clarify one's own thoughts.

Amy (Other Amy) wrote: "I'm planning on a reread/read of all of Shakespeare over the next couple of years...

I read one a month, and I found that worked out well, leaving me enough time to read other things so that the whole thing didn't get monotonous.

Feel free to message me if you want to discuss some aspect of a particular play.

Thank you, that's very gracious. I most surely will if I come up with something worthwhile. (I still feel like I'm shaking the cobwebs out of my mind sometimes.)

Interesting! I've never knew that when I first read this book!

I agree, but if they knew they were rival households then how come they didn't run while no one knew. It doesn't make sense they just stayed there acted like nothing happens, but I liked the book so.

Shakespeare would create many other such characters, but these three are the first.
Wow, thanks, Bill ! I was not aware of that. Did Marlowe create any such characters?

William wrote: "Shakespeare would create many other such characters, but these three are the first.
Wow, thanks, Bill ! I was not aware of that. Did Marlowe create any such characters?"

No. All Marlowe's memorable characters sound like Marlowe. But Chaucer did--The Wife of Bath being the best example.

Totally Awesome!
Made my day, Bill

I need to re-read this. Read in school two decades ago, couldn't stand it. Maybe it'll read different now. Never been a fan of plays though, so cautious

The 1996 movie was brilliant, set in the modern-day city of Verona Beach. Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117509/c...

Such a tragic end…

I read that Shakespeare is the first (English) writer to give unique, individual voices to his characters.

William wrote: "I read that Shakespeare is the first (English) writer to give unique, individual voices to his characters."

On a consistent basis, yes. But Chaucer precedes Shakespeare, and the Wife of Bath - and possibly a few of his others too - has an individual voice.