The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1319 Tuesday, 14 May 2002
From: Bill Arnold <
Date: Monday, 13 May 2002 16:40:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 13.1160 Re: Romeo and Juliet
Comment: Re: SHK 13.1160 Re: Romeo and Juliet
Jimmy Jung writes, "Nor can I imagine a production that treats the play
as a lesson in children behaving or not listening to their parents (a
very crude characterization of L. Swilley's critique). I certainly
believe the material is there, if someone was so inclined, but also
suspect that the "star-crossed evidence" is there just to prevent such a
Not that I disagree with calling Romeo and Juliet "star-crossed lovers,"
any more than I disagree with calling Lancelot and Guinevere, Tristan
and Isolde, Abelarde and Heloise, Dante and Beatrice, Nicole and
Aucassin, Palamon and Emilie, Osiris and Isis, or Adam and Eve pairs of
star-crossed lovers! But I guess I disagree with the definition, and
seek a new definition. Perhaps, the notion of, star-crossed=fate, has
too much of a restrictive connotation to it.
I'll wing mine at you, and then let others have a go at it. In the case
of Adam and Eve, after "not listening to their parents" [God!], after
eating of the "forbidden fruit," they SAW themselves as ATTRACTED to
each other, and classically that has been called, as star-crossed
lovers, "love at first sight" [I know there are some punsterisms in
there somewhere :) ].
But my NEW definition IS: "love at first bite"!
Doesn't that take some of the fatalistic star-stuff out of it, and bring
it--you'll excuse the Edenic allegory--back down to earth?
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.