• rumschlumpel@feddit.org
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    1 year ago

    The author’s intent was to show that Romeo and Juliet is dumb teenager behavior, despite generations of people being taught the opposite. This would at least remind the public of that.

    • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zoneM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      And yet, it is also likely commentary on the futile squabbles of specific nobility at the time, like most of the Bard’s plays. Layered meanings are not new to Shakespeare, nor is neglecting to admit everything that is meant by a work. Nudging and winking to avoid danger is a long held artistic tradition, so there’s no way to know that recorded authorial intent was the entire authorial intent. This is why authorial intent can never carry the power some may think.

      • rumschlumpel@feddit.org
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It probably has layers, but one meaning that’s probably not part of the intention is the romantic yet tragic love story it’s often presented as.

        • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zoneM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I disagree. It’s a boldheaded romance that would’ve been possible if not for the petty feud of the families. Toxic social group dynamics prevent a romance AND the couple is foolish in love. Both can be true without there being a party unequivocally in the right. The story is messy, and that’s likely the point.

          • rumschlumpel@feddit.org
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            They’re like 18 and 13 years old (Romeo’s age is never specified, but Juliet is definitely 13). Just no.

            • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zoneM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              That is fucked up, and yet that sadly wouldn’t have been seen as such a bad thing back then. Values of the past sucked, but that doesn’t change the equation. The romance is toxic AND the society that prevents peace is too.

  • anachrohackdeleted by creator
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    deleted by creator

        • RedAggroBest
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’d argue the kids who were bullied relentlessly ended up shopping at hot topic

          • SkyezOpen
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            This is it. Hot topic was always mainstream counterculture. There was stuff popular people liked (Hollister, Abercrombie), and there was stuff that people who didn’t like popular people liked, and for the latter you went to hot topic.

    • grue
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Was the other store any better?

  • AmazingAwesomator
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    though i do think the author should keep & break iambic pentameter within the fairview mall version, i’ll allow it.

  • LaoisheFu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Excellent . Mad that u check the date to see if its Ai. Would have gone with preppy princess though