1. Jessica says:

    Even Shakespeare knew that Romeo and Juliet was not a romance though — it was a tragedy (it’s in the name). The entire story is about people making stupid decisions (adults waging a foolish war, children ignoring it in favor of short-lived peace, near-sighted solutions to larger problems, etc.) It’s only been in the last hundred and fifty years or so that people have largely seen R&J as a romantic drama, and not the tragedy of errors that it was written as — Rosaline was included as a deliberate foil for Romeo’s affections, making the entire thing more tragic because the audience knows from the start that Romeo is a bit of a flake and that (if given the right distraction) the entire mess with Juliet and thus the deaths of both could have been avoided. Every main character in a classically-written tragedy has their fatal flaw, and Romeo’s is that his infatuations run too strongly and rule him rather than the other way around.

  2. notleia says:

    To get all postmodern, it could be that Romeo’s declarations of undying love were true until they weren’t. Perhaps his love for Rosalind could have been undying if he had never met Juliet.

    Or while he may say what he means, what he means isn’t terribly precious.

  3. Rhiannon says:

    We’re made in God’s image, and God is the ultimate Author, who determines not just the content of reality but also the meaning of everything. It doesn’t matter what I say about something; if it goes against what God says about it, I’m wrong. Period. Granted, there may be some gray areas when you step onto the lower plane of human existence (the image is not the exact essence; and how exactly does free will play out in all this?) but we still need to be careful not to fall into Stan Fish’s rather slippery method of interpretation.

    There’s nothing wrong with expressing different viewpoints (I actually semi-defended reader response theory in a paper once, which my Bible college prof approved…mainly, that fanfiction is a form of RRT, and it’s okay to play and have some fun with it, as long as we don’t call it canon). It’s a matter of stating an opinion vs. being dogmatic. Fortunately, at least in the Bible, “The main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things” (Alistair Begg).

    I’m not saying you’re being dogmatic or calling anything canon. Just felt the above needed to be stated for clarity, which you may agree with but isn’t readily apparent in your article.

    • notleia says:

      I guess it makes sense that Bible college profs aren’t supposed to approve of reader response, but that just kinda baffles me all the same. Authoritarians, man.

What do you think?